Monks, Paladins, and Fighters, oh my!

[Telonius]

I'd say that virtually every character in a published module or sourcebook is nowhere near optimized. (Possible exceptions being full Druids, who can break the game by accident as long as they take Natural Spell).

[Bitter Iocus]

Uh, no.

Like trying to fight against Pun-Pun? Or fighting against "I've got every spell and metamagic feat in the book, because I'm a Wizard!" guy?

Sorry, that's clearly not RAI.

So... they're doing it wrong? Should they stop having fun too? ;)

[Boci]

So... they're doing it wrong? Should they stop having fun too? ;)

What he's saying is that the game works best if you play casters as WotC intended them: wizards are blasters, clerics are healers. It makes them more comparable to melee, but does mean not using the more useful spells.

[Sir Giacomo]

Interesting discussion.

candyhorn, as far as I can tell you got the rules right with your pinpoint-invisible-wizard-flurry-grapple-pin-him sequence.
You may be interested in the core monk guide once did. Can't link it right now via my mobile, but it may be in my sig- or you can find it easily enough with the search function for "joker monk".
It's full of ideas how a monk can fight a wizard.

- Giacomo

[Prodan]

What he's saying is that the game works best if you play casters as WotC intended them: wizards are blasters, clerics are healers. It makes them more comparable to melee, but does mean not using the more useful spells.

The hyperbole aside, I do not get how having a wizard who uses spells intelligently is somehow not rules as intended. Surely the rules intended for wizards to be able to learn specific spells and apply them. And surely it is ok for the players to use smart tactics.


Interesting discussion.

candyhorn, as far as I can tell you got the rules right with your pinpoint-invisible-wizard-flurry-grapple-pin-him sequence.
You may be interested in the core monk guide once did. Can't link it right now via my mobile, but it may be in my sig- or you can find it easily enough with the search function for "joker monk".
It's full of ideas how a monk can fight a wizard.

- Giacomo


Doesn't the Joker constantly lose to Batman?

[The Cat Goddess]

That word you keep using. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Actually, I think it does.

Gary, TSR & WotC clearly did not intend for a level 15+ Wizard to always win every encounter. In fact, other than Gary himself loving to kill characters (and he prefered traps and no-win scenarios, rather than overpowering NPCs), it's clearly intended for the player characters to win any fight that is reasonably close to (or below) their CR.

Thus, RAI.

[Greenish]

The hyperbole aside, I do not get how having a wizard who uses spells intelligently is somehow not rules as intended. Surely the rules intended for wizards to be able to learn specific spells and apply them. And surely it is ok for the players to use smart tactics.Using classes to their full potential is not how WotC envisioned the game to be played.

[Boci]

Hyperbole aside, I do not get how having a wizard who uses spells intelligently is somehow not rules as intended. Surely the rules intended for wizards to be able to learn specific spells and apply them. And surely it is ok for the players to use smart tactics.

Its impossible to prove, but there is evidence that suggests that was not how WotC intended wizards to be played, hence rules as intended. It doesn't mean playhing a god / batman style wizard is "wrong", just not how the creators intended.

[Prodan]

Actually, I think it does.

Gary, TSR & WotC clearly did not intend for a level 15+ Wizard to always win every encounter. In fact, other than Gary himself loving to kill characters (and he prefered traps and no-win scenarios, rather than overpowering NPCs), it's clearly intended for the player characters to win any fight that is reasonably close to (or below) their CR.

Thus, RAI.

Logically, it is also RAI for the DM to act like a jerk and arbitrarily kill characters.

Thanks!

[Boci]

Logically, it is also RAI for the DM to act like a jerk and arbitrarily kill characters.

Thanks!

Where are you getting that from? the DMG says you should challange your Pcs.

[Prodan]

Where are you getting that from?
Tome of Horrors.

[DragoonWraith]

snip
Normally I don't get involved in this, but I think it a disservice to candycorn to not here: Be aware that almost no one agrees with Sir Giacomo. His rules interpretations are shady at best, and out-right wrong at worst, he skews all available data to match his own viewpoint, and he completely ignores anything and everything that suggests he is incorrect on any point. He does know a lot about Monks, but you must take every single thing he says with a ton of salt.

[Bitter Iocus]

Interesting discussion.

candyhorn, as far as I can tell you got the rules right with your pinpoint-invisible-wizard-flurry-grapple-pin-him sequence.
You may be interested in the core monk guide once did. Can't link it right now via my mobile, but it may be in my sig- or you can find it easily enough with the search function for "joker monk".
It's full of ideas how a monk can fight a wizard.

- Giacomo

So, I'm reading over your guide, and I'm not satisfied with some of the assumptions you are making. Talk to me in detail about specific builds, please? And how they deal with specific problems like Solid Fog? Can I see some tests or stuff?

[The Cat Goddess]

Tome of Horrors.

E. Gary Gygax exception, mentioned in my post.

[Prodan]

So, I'm reading over your guide, and I'm not satisfied with some of the assumptions you are making. Talk to me in detail about specific builds, please? And how they deal with specific problems like Solid Fog? Can I see some tests or stuff?

1. The monk in his guide has Con and HP which seem a bit... low.
2. Solid Fog is dealt with with a Ring of Freedom of Movement or the Dimension Step ability, of course.

[candycorn]

Interesting discussion.

candyhorn, as far as I can tell you got the rules right with your pinpoint-invisible-wizard-flurry-grapple-pin-him sequence.
You may be interested in the core monk guide once did. Can't link it right now via my mobile, but it may be in my sig- or you can find it easily enough with the search function for "joker monk".
It's full of ideas how a monk can fight a wizard.

- Giacomo

No, thank you. That's way too much to read.

[Boci]

So, I'm reading over your guide, and I'm not satisfied with some of the assumptions you are making. Talk to me in detail about specific builds, please? And how they deal with specific problems like Solid Fog? Can I see some tests or stuff?

Solid fog is dealt with via a magic item that grants blinking. A lot of Giacomo's stuff relies on a very flexable WBL (e.g. wands with 1 or 2 charges), custom gear and an extra budget for consumables.

[Bitter Iocus]

1. The monk in his guide has Con and HP which seem a bit... low.
2. Solid Fog is dealt with with a Ring of Freedom of Movement or the Dimension Step ability, of course.

But Dim step is limited use, and RoFOM (hehehehehe RoFOOOOOOOOOOOOOMMMMMMM) is super expensive! Like super expensive! How do you get all the other stuff while still getting it? I'm skeptical. I know that money is always a pinch of a thing. Also, didn't Gia do the Monkening or something? Can someone link me to that? Did I just miss the link to it?




Solid fog is dealt with via a magic item that grants blinking. A lot of Giacomo's stuff relies on a very flexable WBL (e.g. wands with 1 or 2 charges), custom gear and an extra budget for consumables.

How does blink fix solid fog? solid fog is a big-no spell, and the ehtereal is just a fuzzy view of the material, roight?

[Prodan]

But Dim step is limited use, and RoFOM (hehehehehe RoFOOOOOOOOOOOOOMMMMMMM) is super expensive! Like super expensive! How do you get all the other stuff while still getting it? I'm skeptical. I know that money is always a pinch of a thing.

Well, I guess you could always reinterpret the text of the spell to allow someone to move out of it in a single round if cash is an issue.

[Boci]

How does blink fix solid fog? solid fog is a big-no spell, and the ehtereal is just a fuzzy view of the material, roight?

You can move through solid objects. But im pretty sure such an item is custom made, I'm not sure though.

[Flickerdart]

No, thank you. That's way too much to read.
I'll summarize it for you: Put cross-class ranks into UMD and buy partially charged wands, then spend several rounds buffing at the start of every combat to approach a stock Fighter's power level. Giacomo's Monk build relies on less Monk class features than Monk 2/PsyWar 18.

[candycorn]

I'll summarize it for you: Put cross-class ranks into UMD and buy partially charged wands, then spend several rounds buffing at the start of every combat to approach a stock Fighter's power level. Giacomo's Monk build relies on less Monk class features than Monk 2/PsyWar 18.

That sounds like a weird way to do it. Fun maybe, but weird.

I picked monk because I just got done watching a Jackie Chan movie.

I might have picked a 2 bladed sword guy if I just got done watching that Star Trek movie.

[Boci]

That sounds like a weird way to do it. Fun maybe, but weird.

I picked monk because I just got done watching a Jackie Chan movie.

I might have picked a 2 bladed sword guy if I just got done watching that Star Trek movie.

Check out ToB if you can, an unarmed swordsage may interest you.

[Kaiyanwang]

@ Candycorn: point being, that both you and people you are arguing with are right.

Theoretically speaking, wizards are unbeatable. Magic is way too powerful and varies too much to make you being challenged by mortal beings.

But.. most people don't play spellcasters in that way. In standard games, if there's something too powerful DM ban it. So, in these gameworld, Wzzies cannot do everything they want.

Moreover, people alway forget how much subject to unexpected thing the game is. Maybe one day comes up that the guy who beat the Wizard is a bard that tells to a councyl of advanced Great Wyrms that the wizard is a jerk and must die. And they believe him.

*wizard screams his flesh burned* "AAARRRGH why this?"

dragons: "you know, is a funny, good boy. You didn't have to mock him".

Finally, arenas are silly per se. As the standard gameworld goes, it's more likely a clash betwen PARTIES, I guess.

Wizard + Cleric + Rogue + Barbarian vs Sorcer + Druid + Bard + Fighter, or so.

People could argue that only half of each party could contribute meaningfully to the fight.. who knows? Maybe the winning side count expecially on this.

Good game to you! *raises his drinking cup*

[Prodan]

I might have picked a 2 bladed sword guy if I just got done watching that Star Trek movie.

1. You're thinking of Star Wars: The Phantom Menace.
2. No such movie ever came out. Ever.

[Telonius]

To be fair, I do think it would be pretty hard to wring much more optimization out of the Monk class than Giacomo has. IIRC the original point of it all was to show the limits of what a Monk was capable of doing, given the rules. Which is what theoretical optimization is all about. Nobody's actually going to go out and build a Pun-Pun, and it would be a rare DM that would let that sort of Monk (let alone half the Wizard builds you see around) exist in a real game.

I think that's where optimization breaks down into pointlessness for a lot of people. It's reasonably clear to most observers that the classes are not equal in power. (Just by probability, eventually a Samurai is going to beat a Warblade in melee combat. That doesn't mean they're balanced classes). The questions ought to be, what power level do you want in your games, and what do you have to change about the classes to get it there?

[DragoonWraith]

To be fair, I do think it would be pretty hard to wring much more optimization out of the Monk class than Giacomo has.
Optimizers typically obey the rules. Giacomo doesn't.

[Flickerdart]

1. You're thinking of Star Wars: The Phantom Menace.
2. No such movie ever came out. Ever.
Or, you know, the silly Klingon weapon used in most Star Trek series?

[Amphetryon]

Or, you know, the silly Klingon weapon used in most Star Trek series?

Batleth, however it's spelled.

[Boci]

Optimizers typically obey the rules. Giacomo doesn't.

Doesn't he just interprate the rules in his favour more than is generally deemed acceptable for the purpose of optimization?

[Prodan]

Or, you know, the silly Klingon weapon used in most Star Trek series?

The bat'leth is not a two-bladed sword, it is a curved, bilateral sword.

*Grumble grumble*

[candycorn]

I don't really know what movie it is. I don't really watch sci-fi unless I've convinced my man that I'll only do it if he agrees to take me to see Twilight. I'm just here to try to learn a bit about his hobbies. If I'm gonna play his games, I might as well not embarass him, right?

[hamishspence]

The bat'leth is not a two-bladed sword, it is a curved, bilateral sword.

*Grumble grumble*

It can be used two-handed or one handed (striking with one end)

but it can also be used as if it were a double weapon- and some of the fights do show it being held in a quarterstaff-like position, with both ends at the ready.

[Prodan]

I don't really know what movie it is.

Ah, well there's an easy way to determine.

Did it have bright red glowing bits or not?

[DragoonWraith]

Doesn't he just interprate the rules in his favour more than is generally deemed acceptable for the purpose of optimization?
Yeeess... but he also does not even bother addressing concerns with his interpretations. He literally just asserts everything he needs, and then he asserts that it works (and even with his absurdly favorable interpretations, it still doesn't - he can claim all day that the Monkening showed just how strong his build was, but in reality it did not fare all that well at all).


Giacomo's preferred tactic in discussions seems to be to simply overwhelm people with far too much text, links, references, and claims, and then claim anything people miss as a win, while quietly ignoring things he can't argue with and hoping the fact that he didn't address them gets missed. He hopes no one will actually bother to read the Monkening, so he can assert that it proves how right he is without anyone questioning him. He hopes no one actually bothers with a point-by-point rebuttal, because that lets him make claims without having to defend them, and when anyone does either of those things, he ignores them.

As someone who enjoys a good debate, his tactics really bother me.

[Fax Celestis]

Actually, I think it does.

Gary, TSR & WotC clearly did not intend for a level 15+ Wizard to always win every encounter. In fact, other than Gary himself loving to kill characters (and he prefered traps and no-win scenarios, rather than overpowering NPCs), it's clearly intended for the player characters to win any fight that is reasonably close to (or below) their CR.

Thus, RAI.

"Intention" and "Rules as Intended" are very very different concepts.

Besides, measuring something on the value of "well, I meant to do this" is silly: if someone rear-ends your car but says, "Whoops, I meant to hit the brakes sooner, but I thought I'd do it this way instead," you get them to pay for your repairs.

[Lycar]

The hyperbole aside, I do not get how having a wizard who uses spells intelligently is somehow not rules as intended. Surely the rules intended for wizards to be able to learn specific spells and apply them. And surely it is ok for the players to use smart tactics.

Let me put it this way for you:

It is one thing to look at the rules, figure out that some things are more effective in dealing with, say, a typical combat encounter, then others and apply your findings it in game, as long as you still play with your friends. You know, those other people at the gaming table. Some of which might actually like playing monks. Or fighters for that matter.

It is quite another to take the many, many quirks and flaws in the rules to lord it over the other players and ruin their fun. To play an I-have-acces-to-everything-ever-printed-for-wizards monstrosity that renders the rest of the party irrelevant is neither intelligent, nor clever. It is simply immature. And if you are old enough to be supposed to be mature, it is retarded.

D&D is a game. It is supposed to be fun. When the rules boil down to a choice between playing an 'unoptimized' wizard, who goes along well with his party, or an 'optimized' wizard, who does not play well with the party, guess which one is the smart one...

The possible exception here is the Batman wizard though. While highly optimized, he is an enabler. Properly played, he will make sure that every other party member can excel and shine at their chosen specialty, even the monk and/or fighter.

GOD can go jump into a sphere of annihilation for all I care though.

[AstralFire]

Very few people play Wizards like that. They just like talking about it like they do. (But even at the level they play at, Spellcasters are too good, which is why it gets brought up.)

[Greenish]

The possible exception here is the Batman wizard though. While highly optimized, he is an enabler. Properly played, he will make sure that every other party member can excel and shine at their chosen specialty, even the monk and/or fighter.

GOD can go jump into a sphere of annihilation for all I care though."God wizards" as in the original guide are called "gods" so that they'd still feel cool as support characters.

[The Cat Goddess]

"Intention" and "Rules as Intended" are very very different concepts.

Besides, measuring something on the value of "well, I meant to do this" is silly: if someone rear-ends your car but says, "Whoops, I meant to hit the brakes sooner, but I thought I'd do it this way instead," you get them to pay for your repairs.

Uh... no.

The car maker intended that you use the brakes as they were designed in a rational and intelligent manner that makes driving safe for everyone.

[Fax Celestis]

Uh... no.

The car maker intended that you use the brakes as they were designed in a rational and intelligent manner that makes driving safe for everyone.

Again, measuring intention is a waste of breath (or in this case, pixels): neither you nor I know the true intention behind WotC's design choices (unless you were to reveal yourself as Gwendolyn F. M. Kestrel or Monte Cook or Sean K. Reynolds or something), so it is more effective and more reasonable to use Rules As Written and Rules As Making Sense as a basis for argument.

[Boci]

Uh... no.

The car maker intended that you use the brakes as they were designed in a rational and intelligent manner that makes driving safe for everyone.

If you really want to continue with this metahpor then:

The car maker intended that you use the brakes as they were designed in a rational and intelligent manner that makes driving safe for everyone, but for some reason made the accelerator pad 4 times the sizes of the breaks.

[The Cat Goddess]

If you really want to continue with this metahpor then:

The car maker intended that you use the brakes as they were designed in a rational and intelligent manner that makes driving safe for everyone, but for some reason made the accelerator pad 4 times the sizes of the breaks.

The brake pad is also wider than the accelerator. :smallbiggrin:

[Sir Giacomo]

@candycorn: yep, my guide is somewhat long- you do not need to read it all; there is a section in the 2nd post that deals with general ways of fighting casters as a non-caster. That might be interesting for you. But as far as I can see, you're doing just fine. Enjoy!


Yeeess... but he also does not even bother addressing concerns with his interpretations. He literally just asserts everything he needs, and then he asserts that it works (and even with his absurdly favorable interpretations, it still doesn't - he can claim all day that the Monkening showed just how strong his build was, but in reality it did not fare all that well at all).


Giacomo's preferred tactic in discussions seems to be to simply overwhelm people with far too much text, links, references, and claims, and then claim anything people miss as a win, while quietly ignoring things he can't argue with and hoping the fact that he didn't address them gets missed. He hopes no one will actually bother to read the Monkening, so he can assert that it proves how right he is without anyone questioning him. He hopes no one actually bothers with a point-by-point rebuttal, because that lets him make claims without having to defend them, and when anyone does either of those things, he ignores them.

As someone who enjoys a good debate, his tactics really bother me.

I see some inconsistency in your position here.
You see, my posts on certain game issues tend to get long because I like to deal with many points in the same post and back them up with rules quotes, FAQ rulings, testing threads and individual posts and links - unlike others who often argue a bit more vaguely.
To then call this "wall of text" and not good debating on the one hand and suggest that I most of the times choose to ignore points that I do not like in the other: this is where I see inconsistency.

Abstacting from whether my viewpoints and rules interpretations are correct or not, I feel that debates I enter on controversial subjects like monks often play out like this:
1. Several dozen arguments are brought forward against the monk class
2. I respond to them all, trying to back up the responses with evidence of all kind.
3. 1 point out of 20 arguments of mine is then focused on in turn with criticism. And despite the apparent outcome that 95% of arguments of the monk-doubting side has just been implicitly disproven, the general opinion remains unchanged. ("What? Really? A monk can pinpoint an invisible spellcasting wizard with just DC 20 listen check? A monk's speed bonus is also added to his magic flight speed? He really can flurry grapple? But...he still loses vs mage disjunction! ...Ok, with my previous monk doubting opinion having less basis now, I...still say it is a weak class!":smallwink:)

...

Since interest in the monkening (joker) monk core playtest came up by some posters:
Unfortunately, I am still posting via mobile, so I can' link the monkening ToS thread, but I'll do that later.

- Giacomo

PS: and for the xth time the joker monk concept is NOT about using UMD. It is about using various methods to get magic synergies with the monk' class abilities. UMD is just one way out if several to do this.

[Boci]

("What? Really? A monk can pinpoint an invisible spellcasting wizard with just DC 20 listen check?

No you cannot. That just tells you the general area. You need to beat his move silently check by 20 to pinpoint him.


He really can flurry grapple?

The issue on this thread seemed to be that cannot flurry grapple and pin in the same round.


...Ok, with my previous monk doubting opinion having less basis now, I...still say it is a weak class!":smallwink:).

Yes because a wizard can still make himself immune to grappling with a 3rd level spell slot. Martials characters simply cannot match that. And even when comparing purely martial characters, the monk has several inherant disadvantages when compared to the figter (less easy access to reach, MAD), so no, a mstaken ruling does not neccissarily change everything.

[Prodan]

Giacomo's preferred tactic in discussions seems to be to simply overwhelm people with far too much text, links, references, and claims




I see some inconsistency in your position here.
You see, my posts on certain game issues tend to get long because I like to deal with many points in the same post and back them up with rules quotes, FAQ rulings, testing threads and individual posts and links - unlike others who often argue a bit more vaguely.
To then call this "wall of text" and not good debating on the one hand and suggest that I most of the times choose to ignore points that I do not like in the other: this is where I see inconsistency.

Abstacting from whether my viewpoints and rules interpretations are correct or not, I feel that debates I enter on controversial subjects like monks often play out like this:
1. Several dozen arguments are brought forward against the monk class
2. I respond to them all, trying to back up the responses with evidence of all kind.
3. 1 point out of 20 arguments of mine is then focused on in turn with criticism. And despite the apparent outcome that 95% of arguments of the monk-doubting side has just been implicitly disproven, the general opinion remains unchanged. ("What? Really? A monk can pinpoint an invisible spellcasting wizard with just DC 20 listen check? A monk's speed bonus is also added to his magic flight speed? He really can flurry grapple? But...he still loses vs mage disjunction! ...Ok, with my previous monk doubting opinion having less basis now, I...still say it is a weak class!":smallwink:)

...

Since interest in the monkening (joker) monk core playtest came up by some posters:
Unfortunately, I am still posting via mobile, so I can' link the monkening ToS thread, but I'll do that later.

- Giacomo

PS: and for the xth time the joker monk concept is NOT about using UMD. It is about using various methods to get magic synergies with the monk' class abilities. UMD is just one way out if several to do this.

Is it just me or...?

[Avilan the Grey]

Interesting discussion.

I must say I agree with those that say the intent for wizards and the possibilities that wizards have is disjointed.

This is why it really pays to Min-Max in CRPGs, because nobody else in the game world does it and it gives your character / party a heck of an edge, and if they do (like some of the mods for BGII that adds NPCs that actually are set up like players) they are extremely hard to beat.

One way to get around the Mage uberness is to make schools mandatory. You cannot pick a generalist wizard, you have to be a necromancer, or an invoker. or a conjurer... The in-game justification for this could be as simple as different casters have different talents.

In PnP D&D (or any RPG, really) I actually prefer well thought out PCs that the DM has prepared before hand (A gnome paladin, anyone? :smallbiggrin:) when playing with people that has not played together before. That way you usually get more balanced and thoughtfully created characters with flaws as well.

[Teron]

One way to get around the Mage uberness is to make schools mandatory. You cannot pick a generalist wizard, you have to be a necromancer, or an invoker. or a conjurer... The in-game justification for this could be as simple as different casters have different talents.
The best wizards specialise in conjuration or transmutation and dump evocation and enchantment. Banning generalists doesn't nerf wizards, it just removes a sub-optimal (though still tier 1) option.

[Avilan the Grey]

The best wizards specialise in conjuration or transmutation and dump evocation and enchantment. Banning generalists doesn't nerf wizards, it just removes a sub-optimal (though still tier 1) option.

Of course additional / strengthened rules might be in place, that makes it much more costly to get spells outside your school, for example.

[Boci]

Of course additional / strengthened rules might be in place, that makes it much more costly to get spells outside your school, for example.

I once saw a houserule that generalist wizards could choose 5 subschools and a specialist could choose 3. Made me wonder just how weaker a specialist with abjuration, conjuration and transmutation would be. Sure, you loose out on some good spells like colour spray and ray of exhaustion, but those free schools should have all your main bases covered.

[Prodan]

Might cut down on defensive abilities a tad.

[DragoonWraith]

To then call this "wall of text" and not good debating on the one hand and suggest that I most of the times choose to ignore points that I do not like in the other: this is where I see inconsistency.
I absolutely refuse to argue with you, Giacomo. I have before, and I have watched others do it, and I have no interest in doing so. I stand by every single point I made, and I do not think it inconsistent - you hide the flaws in your arguments in walls of texts, and ignore them when people point them out. You do cite tons of data, research, rules text, etc etc, but it doesn't say what you claim it says and you ignore people when they point it out. So, yes, arguing with you is pointless, because your arguments are, in my opinion, inherently deceitful.

[Boci]

Might cut down on defensive abilities a tad.

Illusions for invisibility and mirror image will be missed, but transmutation and abjuration should cover everything else.

[The Cat Goddess]

Illusions for invisibility and mirror image will be missed, but transmutation and abjuration should cover everything else.

Many of the "Wizard always wins" Shenanigans I read about rely upon Divination.

[Prodan]

You can planar bind imps for divinations.

[jseah]

^Wizard always wins shenanigans rely on the "I win" buttons wizards have.

They have a lot.
Divination is a just very powerful one.

**
I do like the way the "I win" buttons present new options that change the game. Like the way that near-epic characters trapped in a dungeon (with no planar connections) could refuse to crawl it and set up a base.

Or knock holes everywhere and mine their way out.

The options full casters get have the ability to restructure the terms of engagement. A bit like flying when no one else can and everyone else is melee.
They also get abilities like CoP, Commune and various Divinations that when used (if allowed to be effective) could also change the way everything works.

The common quip of "telling physics to sit down and shut up" is more a reference to how the wizard changes the strategy of the game just by existing.

[Sir Giacomo]

I absolutely refuse to argue with you, Giacomo. I have before, and I have watched others do it, and I have no interest in doing so. I stand by every single point I made, and I do not think it inconsistent - you hide the flaws in your arguments in walls of texts, and ignore them when people point them out. You do cite tons of data, research, rules text, etc etc, but it doesn't say what you claim it says and you ignore people when they point it out. So, yes, arguing with you is pointless, because your arguments are, in my opinion, inherently deceitful.

DragoonWraith, I doubt that the two of us ever discussed the monk at all in this forum.
Still, you basically criticised both what I say and the way I say it and thus provoke a response - and now you say you do not want to argue with me?
Another inconsistency here.
But in one thing I agree with you: there is no value added for this thread for us to continue this. If you wish to go into this further, please start another thread.

- Giacomo

[Philistine]

Oh gods yes! Let's have another Monk thread while this one is still on the first page! That totally won't get locked by the mods, giving you a free "no fault" way out of the discussion.

[Gametime]

DragoonWraith, I doubt that the two of us ever discussed the monk at all in this forum.


No, I remember that thread. You too definitely had some interaction, although DragoonWraith wasn't your main opponent.

The fact remains that, say, claiming that a DC 20 Listen check is sufficient to pinpoint an invisible wizard is demonstrably false. I don't think you're being intentionally deceitful - your arguments, to me, sound like you are speaking honestly. The people you argue with certainly aren't guiltless, either - I've seen a lot of arguments that just devolve into pointless hyperbole or outright falsehoods. But that doesn't excuse your inaccuracies, or the fact that you sometimes just ignore the fact that you've made a mistake.

Responding to people who point out ways in which you are factually, demonstrably, inarguably mistaken might go a long way towards improving your credibility among people who have disregarded it.

[sofawall]

For the third time so far, I agree with Giacomo on something.

You can, in fact, pin on round one of a grapple.

Relevant Sections:

When you are grappling (regardless of who started the grapple), you can perform any of the following actions. Some of these actions take the place of an attack (rather than being a standard action or a move action). If your base attack bonus allows you multiple attacks, you can attempt one of these actions in place of each of your attacks, but at successively lower base attack bonuses.


Pin Your Opponent

You can hold your opponent immobile for 1 round by winning an opposed grapple check (made in place of an attack). Once you have an opponent pinned, you have a few options available to you (see below).

Emphasis mine.

[Pluto]

Since we've already started slinging mud, can we skip right ahead to the 50cm-long sentence-by-sentence deconstructions of one-anothers' posts?

Those are always my favorite ways for Monk/Fighter/ToB/Psionics threads to die.

[Koury]

I actually throughly enjoy these debates, be they monk vs wizard or simply monk vs fighter/melee.

Plus, Glyphstone keeps bringing popcorn.

[The Cat Goddess]

The fact remains that, say, claiming that a DC 20 Listen check is sufficient to pinpoint an invisible wizard is demonstrably false.

Actually, you're the one in the wrong here.

If the Wizard in question does not perform a Move Silently check... and, more importantly, if he casts a spell without making it Silent, the DC of the Listen Check is 0. Beating this DC by 20 lets you pinpoint the invisible opponent.

[Prodan]

DragoonWraith, I doubt that the two of us ever discussed the monk at all in this forum.
Still, you basically criticised both what I say and the way I say it and thus provoke a response - and now you say you do not want to argue with me?
Another inconsistency here.

Giacomo, DragoonWraith started off talking about you to someone else. There is no reason why he should be conversing with you. You are treating someone who was not talking to you as if he were.

Sounds...

Inconsistent.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3663/3331500568_fcf18dec46.jpg

[The Glyphstone]

I actually throughly enjoy these debates, be they monk vs wizard or simply monk vs fighter/melee.

Plus, Glyphstone keeps bringing popcorn.

I'm thinking of changing it up to kettle corn for the next one, just for some variety.

[Koury]

I'm thinking of changing it up to kettle corn for the next one, just for some variety.

Oh, or what about one of those big tins with a bunch of different types of popcorn?


http://www.popcult.com/images/tinpic.jpg

[Prodan]

For Pluto:

Since
When?

we've
Who is this "we" you are talking about? Also, don't you know contractions aren't supposed to be used in written or typed sentences?


already started slinging mud
There is no mud on the internet. I fail to understand what you mean by that statement. You are wrong! WRONG!

can we skip right ahead to the 50cm-long sentence-by-sentence deconstructions of one-anothers' posts?
I think we've gotten past that behavior by now.


Those are always my favorite ways for Monk/Fighter/ToB/Psionics threads to die.
What about alignment threads?

I guess the real question is, why do you hate paladins? :smallwink:

(Just kidding. If that wasn't obvious. Have a nice day. :smallsmile:)

[The Glyphstone]

Oh, or what about one of those big tins with a bunch of different types of popcorn?


http://www.popcult.com/images/tinpic.jpg

Mmmm, caramel corn....

[Stompy]

Oh, or what about one of those big tins with a bunch of different types of popcorn?

Yes! I will totally Sleight of Hand some of that :smallsmile:.


I forgot what we were talking about, so I'll branch out. There are several reasons why I hate playing strict core melee types, like the monk, fighter, and paladin. They are:

-enemies with DR
-enemies that fly
-enemies with huge reach and can splat me in two or less hits
-enemies that have a +yes to grapple and improved grab
-all of them suffer from the law of diminishing returns (regardless of whether or not casters exist imo)

Attempts to lessen or negate these problems cost a lot of money (usually), and since you have to worry about magic weapons as well as focusing on defensive items to be a tank, you become frazzled, and try to plan for every contingency, only to have your DM sneak attack you with ninjas (or something else that you didn't prepare for).

EDIT: I guess what I am trying to say is that they are too inflexible for my tastes.

[DragoonWraith]

Sorry to ruin the show, but I'm not responding to him nor is he me, so I think that's done.


I forgot what we were talking about, so I'll branch out. There are several reasons why I hate playing strict core melee types, like the monk, fighter, and paladin. They are:

-enemies with DR
-enemies that fly
-enemies with huge reach and can splat me in two or less hits
-enemies that have a +yes to grapple and improved grab
-all of them suffer from the law of diminishing returns (regardless of whether or not casters exist imo)

Attempts to lessen or negate these problems cost a lot of money (usually), and since you have to worry about magic weapons as well as focusing on defensive items to be a tank, you become frazzled, and try to plan for every contingency, only to have your DM sneak attack you with ninjas (or something else that you didn't prepare for).

EDIT: I guess what I am trying to say is that they are too inflexible for my tastes.
I agree wholeheartedly with this. Those are pretty much exactly the reason why I don't like non-ToB/MoI melee.

[Ozymandias9]

Again, measuring intention is a waste of breath (or in this case, pixels): neither you nor I know the true intention behind WotC's design choices (unless you were to reveal yourself as Gwendolyn F. M. Kestrel or Monte Cook or Sean K. Reynolds or something), so it is more effective and more reasonable to use Rules As Written and Rules As Making Sense as a basis for argument.

Rational discourse is never a waste.

Perhaps we can not know their "true intentions", but we can extrapolate a great deal from their presented intentions: the design of 3e, while by no means open, was quite vocal. WotC had invested a fair bit of money in the property and (though it seems strange today) was quite vocal about the fact that they wanted to make sure that the core audience at the time had a reason to update.

They released play tests to magazines to hype the game. They had interviews in which they talked about, in fair specificity, changes made between editions. Most of this is sadly hard to get a hold of these days, but it's not hard to make a reasonable (though admittedly not foolproof) abstraction as to at least some of the basic design goals and assumptions.

For example, if memory serves, the introduction of concentration checks and the removal of increased prep time for higher level spells was presented in quality of play terms regarding spell loss and rationing in 2e (which players were often quite vocal about finding frustrating). A cleric's increased offensive arsenal (IIRC, they specifically mentioned Righteous Might) was presented as a way to give clerics something to do other than heal. Etc.

From these and other examples, we can extrapolate some understanding of why rules were structures in specific ways. I personally would take from the given examples that one of their basic design goal for 3e was to solve quality of play issues inherent in the AD&D system-- to create a new system where the old game was more fun to play. The emphasis here is that they seemed to be aiming for the same game. I doubt that they assumed a static community, but it does seem reasonable that they weren't really designing with the foresight of how their aim at accessibility (and likely other societal factors) would help grow the market nor the kind of scrutiny that the widespread use of the internet would bring to bear.

For me at least, that qualifies as intent (though it does not necessarily qualify as good design in all aspects).

But seriously, we're often really hard on 3e/3.5 here when discussing balance. The basic system wasn't designed with the assumptions of a market as big and interconnected as the one that it created. It wasn't designed for the kind of scrutiny that the widespread use of the internet brings to the table.

Despite this, the game was quite successful. The fact that there is a far bigger chunk of people looking at PnP rpgs these days should at least make some indication that their design was not, at least, horrifically bad (though there were myriad other factors there as well).

People are still playing 3.5 and having fun. They are still playing paladins. If you find one truly unplayable and another player does not, then it seems reasonable they their expectations and experiences may be closer to those from which the paladin was designed.

[Kaiyanwang]

I'm thinking of changing it up to kettle corn for the next one, just for some variety.

*hugs The_Glyphstone*

[Fax Celestis]

Rational discourse is never a waste.Assumptions are irrational. Deductions are rational. You are making deductions, previous arguers were making assumptions.


People are still playing 3.5 and having fun. They are still playing paladins. If you find one truly unplayable and another player does not, then it seems reasonable they their expectations and experiences may be closer to those from which the paladin was designed.
I never said it wasn't, and I don't disagree with you: all I'm saying is that moving the basis of discussion from 'rule intention' (RaI) to either 'the letter of the rule' (RaW) or 'the spirit of the rule' (RaMS) creates an environment that is more conducive to actually solving some of the issues with the game.

[Boci]

if he casts a spell without making it Silent, the DC of the Listen Check is 0. Beating this DC by 20 lets you pinpoint the invisible opponent.

Assuming he does move after casting the spell.

[Prodan]

Nitpick: If you're not next to him, there's a distance penalty.

[The Cat Goddess]

Assuming he does move after casting the spell.

No. Because the act of talking to cast the spell is enough to use to pinpoint him.

Arguably, depending on the gestures, Still Spell would be required as well if the PC(s) were being quiet themselves and specifically listening for sounds of movement.

[Boci]

No. Because the act of talking to cast the spell is enough to use to pinpoint him.

Arguably, depending on the gestures, Still Spell would be required as well if the PC(s) were being quiet themselves and specifically listening for sounds of movement.

He casts the spell and pin point him. He then moves. Also, distance penalties.

[The Cat Goddess]

Again, by the book, the base DC to hear someone is 0. To Pinpoint them, you have to beat the check by 20.

Saying you can't pinpoint an invisibile wizard with a Listen Check of 20 is incorrect.

[Boci]

Again, by the book, the base DC to hear someone is 0. To Pinpoint them, you have to beat the check by 20.

Saying you can't pinpoint an invisibile wizard with a Listen Check of 20 is incorrect.

You can pinpoint him if he casts a spell. If he then moves however after casting the spell, you will need to beat his (most likely) dex check by 20 + distance modifiers.

[The Glyphstone]

Again, by the book, the base DC to hear someone is 0. To Pinpoint them, you have to beat the check by 20.

Saying you can't pinpoint an invisibile wizard with a Listen Check of 20 is incorrect.

well, for maximum pedantry, there is the +1 DC per 10ft. of distance. That'd make it at most a DC25-26 check though, otherwise the Monk won't be within a single Travel Devotion-fueled move action to get where he can attack the pinpointed wizard and so the whole point is moot anyways. And Wisdom is their primary stat.

[Gnaeus]

Again, by the book, the base DC to hear someone is 0. To Pinpoint them, you have to beat the check by 20.

Saying you can't pinpoint an invisibile wizard with a Listen Check of 20 is incorrect.

If he is standing right next to you and decided not to move silently.

[Amphetryon]

Sofa, I respect your opinion, but starting a grapple via Flurry of Blows (as indicated in this, very specific, case) is a Full Attack Action. Unless there's some text that I've missed indicating that is not the case for Flurry + Grapple, there's not an extra attack action available to Pin unless the OP were subject to Haste or similar.

If a Grapple is initiated as a Standard Attack, you're correct. It was initiated through Flurry of Blows, however. From the SRD:


A monk must use a full attack action to strike with a flurry of blows.

[The Cat Goddess]

Sofa, I respect your opinion, but starting a grapple via Flurry of Blows (as indicated in this, very specific, case) is a Full Attack Action. Unless there's some text that I've missed indicating that is not the case for Flurry + Grapple, there's not an extra attack action available to Pin unless the OP were subject to Haste or similar.

If a Grapple is initiated as a Standard Attack, you're correct. It was initiated through Flurry of Blows, however. From the SRD:

Actually, a Grapple is initiated as an Attack Action, not a Standard Attack. Therefore, if you have a BAB of +6, you can initiate a Grapple, fail, then try again (with 5 lower on the touch attack attempt, but no penalty on the Grapple check).

Also, the Monk in question had a special Feat that allowed her to initiate Grapple Attempts on a successful melee hit with Unarmed Strike or with a Kama.

[Amphetryon]

Actually, a Grapple is initiated as an Attack Action, not a Standard Attack. Therefore, if you have a BAB of +6, you can initiate a Grapple, fail, then try again (with 5 lower on the touch attack attempt, but no penalty on the Grapple check).

Also, the Monk in question had a special Feat that allowed her to initiate Grapple Attempts on a successful melee hit with Unarmed Strike or with a Kama.So the fact that Flurry of Blows was already used is irrelevant when determining whether any actions are left to Pin?

[DragoonWraith]

Grapple is weird because it's the only thing in D&D that uses Attack actions. Actually, looking at it, it seems almost like you could initiate a Grapple with an AoO... but you definitely can initiate it on any attack in a full-attack, including a Flurry of Blows-style full-attack.

EDIT: That's not true, on second thought: lots of things use attack actions, namely the special attacks: Trip, Sunder, Disarm, etc. Treat Grapple like one of those.

[Gametime]

So the fact that Flurry of Blows was already used is irrelevant when determining whether any actions are left to Pin?

Pin replaces an attack. The section on special grapple moves explicitly says they can be undertaken as part of a full attack. I'm not sure why the fact that the full attack was started prior to the grapple should prevent it from finishing, nor why it should prevent one of the remaining attacks being replaced with a pin attempt.


Actually, you're the one in the wrong here.

If the Wizard in question does not perform a Move Silently check... and, more importantly, if he casts a spell without making it Silent, the DC of the Listen Check is 0. Beating this DC by 20 lets you pinpoint the invisible opponent.

Yes, technically, that is correct. As others have pointed out, assuming that the wizard does not make a Move Silently check, and the monk is already adjacent to the wizard, and the wizard does not move after casting the spell, you could pinpoint the wizard after a non-silenced spellcasting. Calling it false was obviously too strong - I should have said it was deliberately misleading, since the situation in question is unlikely to ever come up.

Actually, reading through the SRD, I can't find anything that indicates Move Silently can't be used to silence non-movement actions.


Action

None. A Move Silently check is included in your movement or other activity, so it is part of another action.


Check

Your Listen check is either made against a DC that reflects how quiet the noise is that you might hear, or it is opposed by your target’s Move Silently check.

In the case of people trying to be quiet, the DCs given on the table could be replaced by Move Silently checks, in which case the indicated DC would be their average check result.

What does the Playground think? Poorly written skill description, or intentionally broad skill that covers speaking softly to disguise the fact that you are casting a spell? Or, more likely, I'm just overlooking something that would answer this question in no uncertain terms.

[Prodan]

Move Silently does not work that way.

[Gametime]

Move Silently does not work that way.

Could you point me to the textual evidence for this? I'd be inclined to agree with you, but based on the actual rules, I can't find justification for it.

[Ozymandias9]

Assumptions are irrational. Deductions are rational. You are making deductions, previous arguers were making assumptions.


You make a valid, if depressing, point. I apologize for my knee-jerk reaction.

[ScionoftheVoid]

What does the Playground think? Poorly written skill description, or intentionally broad skill that covers speaking softly to disguise the fact that you are casting a spell? Or, more likely, I'm just overlooking something that would answer this question in no uncertain terms.

There are fixed DC's for listening to someone speaking, whether they speak just loud enough to hear or they're Brian Blessed. Verbal spell components must specifically be said in a loud, clear voice IIRC. I don't think that that is RAW, but it doesn't seem like that bad an idea except for the fact that Move Silently as a skill is based on Dex (not that appropriate), that no other skill or ability directly applies and that having your volume based on a die roll seems more wrong than just using the fixed values for speaking and whispereing and inventing one for shouting (if there isn't one already, I don't think there is. I could always be wrong).

[sofawall]

Pin replaces an attack. The section on special grapple moves explicitly says they can be undertaken as part of a full attack. I'm not sure why the fact that the full attack was started prior to the grapple should prevent it from finishing, nor why it should prevent one of the remaining attacks being replaced with a pin attempt.

This is, indeed, my thought.

I'm not sure how people are confused by what I quoted.

[Gametime]

There are fixed DC's for listening to someone speaking, whether they speak just loud enough to hear or they're Brian Blessed. Verbal spell components must specifically be said in a loud, clear voice IIRC. I don't think that that is RAW, but it doesn't seem like that bad an idea except for the fact that Move Silently as a skill is based on Dex (not that appropriate), that no other skill or ability directly applies and that having your volume based on a die roll seems more wrong than just using the fixed values for speaking and whispereing and inventing one for shouting (if there isn't one already, I don't think there is. I could always be wrong).

Point. I think the reference to actions other than moving was more likely due to an oversight than anything else - but it's an interesting thought, if nothing else.

It's certainly not a particularly defensible interpretation of Move Silently, though.

[The Cat Goddess]

It is RAW that spells with Verbal components must be spoken out loud and clearly. No whispering your spells.

Grappling: "When you are grappling (regardless of who started the grapple), you can perform any of the following actions. Some of these actions take the place of an attack (rather than being a standard action or a move action). If your base attack bonus allows you multiple attacks, you can attempt one of these actions in place of each of your attacks, but at successively lower base attack bonuses."

One of these options is "Pin your Opponent".

So, if you have a BAB of +16, you could:
1) Make a touch attack (the grab) at +16, if successful it's a free action to start a Grapple.
2.1) If you succeed on the touch attack and the grapple attempt, you can then use your second attack to attempt a Pin.
2.1a) If you succeed on the Pin, you can use your third attack to damage your opponent, move the grapple or disarm.
2.1b) If you fail on the Pin, you can use your third attack to try to Pin again, do damage, etc.

2.2) If you fail the touch attack or the grapple attempt, you can try the touch attack (the grab) at +11.
2.2a) If you succeed on this grapple attempt, you can use your third attack to damage your opponent, attempt a Pin, etc.
2.2b) If you fail on the second touch attack or grapple attempt, you can try the touch attack (the grab) a third time at +6.

[Boci]

It is RAW that spells with Verbal components must be spoken out loud and clearly. No whispering your spells.

Yep, but that still does not change the fact that the wizard can move afterwards.

[The Glyphstone]

There are fixed DC's for listening to someone speaking, whether they speak just loud enough to hear or they're Brian Blessed. Verbal spell components must specifically be said in a loud, clear voice IIRC. I don't think that that is RAW, but it doesn't seem like that bad an idea except for the fact that Move Silently as a skill is based on Dex (not that appropriate), that no other skill or ability directly applies and that having your volume based on a die roll seems more wrong than just using the fixed values for speaking and whispereing and inventing one for shouting (if there isn't one already, I don't think there is. I could always be wrong).

Brian Blessed has a racial penalty to Move Silently checks.:smallcool:

[Boci]

Brian Blessed has a racial penalty to Move Silently checks.:smallcool:

But you'll wish he didn't when he hits you with greater shout.

[Flickerdart]

Grappling: "When you are grappling (regardless of who started the grapple), you can perform any of the following actions. Some of these actions take the place of an attack (rather than being a standard action or a move action). If your base attack bonus allows you multiple attacks, you can attempt one of these actions in place of each of your attacks, but at successively lower base attack bonuses."

One of these options is "Pin your Opponent".

Yes, but a Monk of 11th (was it?) level only has two attacks from BAB. If the first attack misses and the second is a grapple attempt, there is no third attack to try and pin. Flurry isn't BAB, it doesn't apply, and there is nothing to suggest that it does that I have read anywhere.

[The Glyphstone]

But you'll wish he didn't when he hits you with greater shout.

Which he has as a SLA at-will, along with regular Shout and Blindness/Deafness (Deafness Only).

..why do I now want to write up homebrew stats for Brian Blessed? Should be be Humanoid or a very small Giant?

[Boci]

Which he has as a SLA at-will, along with regular Shout and Blindness/Deafness (Deafness Only).

..why do I now want to write up homebrew stats for Brian Blessed? Should be be Humanoid or a very small Giant?

I like the giant idea. Possibled hit with a permenant bestow curse that shrunk him to medium size and requires a remove curse of caster level 15 or higher to break. That will give a nice plot hook to go along with him if you ever use him in a game.

[Greenish]

I like the giant idea. Possibled hit with a permenant bestow curse that shrunk him to medium size and requires a remove curse of caster level 15 or higher to break. That will give a nice plot hook to go along with him if you ever use him in a game.Or half-giant with Psionic Shout as a PLA instead of Stomp.

[The Cat Goddess]

Yes, but a Monk of 11th (was it?) level only has two attacks from BAB. If the first attack misses and the second is a grapple attempt, there is no third attack to try and pin. Flurry isn't BAB, it doesn't apply, and there is nothing to suggest that it does that I have read anywhere.

Flurry of Blows increases your number of "Attacks". Therefore, anything that takes an "Attack Action" can be done during Flurry of Blows.

[Flickerdart]

Flurry of Blows increases your number of "Attacks". Therefore, anything that takes an "Attack Action" can be done during Flurry of Blows.
"If your base attack bonus allows you multiple attacks, you can attempt one of these actions in place of each of your attacks, but at successively lower base attack bonuses." Flurry isn't BAB.

[The Cat Goddess]

"If your base attack bonus allows you multiple attacks, you can attempt one of these actions in place of each of your attacks, but at successively lower base attack bonuses." Flurry isn't BAB.

Okay, I didn't want to have to do this...

Come on, it's the Monk Class... it needs all the help it can get!

[Flickerdart]

Okay, I didn't want to have to do this...

Come on, it's the Monk Class... it needs all the help it can get!
Monk can't afford the CHA to make proper puppy dog eyes. No deal! :smalltongue:

[Boci]

"If your base attack bonus allows you multiple attacks, you can attempt one of these actions in place of each of your attacks, but at successively lower base attack bonuses." Flurry isn't BAB.

But what order is flurry of blows conducted in? If we have a BAB of +8 is is +8/f/+3 or or +8/+3/f? Because if its the former than it should work.

[Flickerdart]

But what order is flurry of blows conducted in? If we have a BAB of +8 is is +8/f/+3 or or +8/+3/f? Because if its the former than it should work.
Why would that make a difference?

[Doc Roc]

Precis:
This is the longest post I think I've ever written. Please read it.
I know, it looks dull. But it has a neat story in it.

Precis of the Precis:
There is no Precis.

Just a note on the listen stuff. I've used it pretty extensively in wizard\monk\fighter duels and similar stuff, on both sides. And it is not easy to use for either party, nor is it easy to defend against.

Unless of course, you're a spell caster and you can drop a silence on yourself and grab that rod of silent spell you carry around. Or maybe you can fly at ~100 feet per round, so you just put enough distance in so that listen penalties are out-right vicious. Or you might simply have ranked and buffed move silently. Or possibly you teleport using swift action stuff. Or you have abrupt jaunt. Or you have a familiar with a rod of benign transposition and a readied action.

What I'm getting at is that monk or fighter, or any PC played well is as hard to kill reliably as nailing jello to a wall. Killing Wizards, however, is more like trying to nail smoke to a star.

We've done this. Heck, I've made a game of doing this and helping people do this for literally more than a year now. I don't play D&D 3.x. I play D&D PvP Edition. I have, indirectly, the blood of more ECL 13 characters on my hands than anyone else here, or possibly anywhere. ECL 13 is the tipping point, the balancing cusp beyond which 3.x explodes into a very pretty hellstorm of madness. I've followed this whole thread, and I think people are leaving out some crucial facts.

The Tier systems are the product of empirical evidence and voting by an informed audience. Many of whom had read the crunch of every single 3.x book Wizards ever printed, thought about it, and discussed it for almost 9 years. It is not a work of art. It is not science. It is still an opinion. But in this industry, it's darn-tooting closer to rock-solid fact as you'll ever come.

I would say that more serious thought by smart people has been devoted to 3.x than any other P&P game, and probably any other tabletop game. The opinion that Monks are at least moderately weaker in their optimum state than the practical optimum of wizards is one that I would comfortably rely on. Not because I like it.

I hate Wizards.
I hate Clerics.
Even my adoration for Archivists is nested in a lake of molten guilt.

I grew up playing monks and paladins in 2e. I played tons of CRPGs, and sat at any table which would have me. I was rambunctious and thought I knew my stuff. I thought I was the king-killer, a titan of intellect. I was wrong. I'm only reasonably smart. I found this out when I kept playing monks, kept getting excited about 12d6 damage, and then dropped in on the Wizards of the Coasts forum to read about how right I definitely was.

What I found shocked me. There was no one! No one! Where were the monk builds? So I retreated. I found monk builds here and there. Got hugely excited about things that I now know to be deeply illegitimate from the stand point of rules or even logic. I read builds on D&D Wiki for goodness sake! And I sharpened what I imagined to be skills. I hadn't even heard of Divine Power yet, or any of the other things that in actuality shape the face of D&D 3.x's strange and bitter majesties. Because it is majestic. People forget what a daybreak 3.0 was. It brought rationality and promises of balance and reliable fun. Sure, some promises were broken. And sure, 3.x isn't my favorite game anymore.

That doesn't make it bad. And I learned that as I learned about the strange masteries that an arcanist can articulate in D&D. As I read warily about Tiers. As I learned that perhaps my ideas were wrong. What?

Yes. Yes, I learned. I know that for those who know me only here, the idea of my opinion waffling so easily seems odd. So let me clarify. It took almost eight months for me to face down the idea that the classes were not even. To start running numbers and reading handbooks. To start writing carefully about this weird and deeply esoteric topic. So why am I telling you this?

Well, now? I'm probably near the top of my intellectual weight-class when it comes to D&D. Not that this is saying that much. I'm not very clever. And a linchpin in this is that I learned and read and listened. And sure, sometimes people were wrong. And sure, there was a period of time where arcanists were thought of as mere blasters. But a lot of thought and movement in the community has dragged the opinion away. Why?

Why only away? Because grasping the power of what an arcanist can do in D&D is difficult. Intensely so. And some of it is made ridiculous by the narrative safe-guards inherent in running your game on sentient wetware. :) A lot of it, really.

But not all.
The fact remains that a wizard carries in his back pocket more encounter-ending options that are relevant across all levels than almost any other class from ANY game. In some senses, they represent a huge triumph of design. Playing a wizard is like having a mad scientist capering for your delight. Mechanically differentiated at an often very deep level, spells represent something wicked cool.

But they, and all full-casters with them, are badly, deeply, horribly broken in ways that are literally so ridiculous as to seem like jokes. So bad that we talk about agreements between gentlemen and ladies at the tables we sit, agreements that annihilate entire swaths of their spells. Literally, that kill entire sets of class features. We talk about defending against wizards, and how there are so many ways to counter their tricks. Mentioning, of course, in passing, that they have many many tricks. So many.

And that all of their tricks need to be countered. Because one wizard could have any of many tricks. Many of which are unique or terrifying or wholly orthogonal to the rest of the powers they wield. And this? This is just in core.


It is my respectful opinion that the following thesis:
The game called D&D 3.x is composed of largely balanced classes which offer similar gaming experiences when it comes to what they can do to manipulate the complicated game world, solve problems, and otherwise be engaged in the story.

Is total bullocks.

[The Glyphstone]

What I'm getting at is that monk or fighter, or any PC played well is as hard to kill reliably as nailing jello to a wall. Wizards, however, are more like trying to nail smoke to a star.

Dungeoncrasher Fighter with a Longspear vs. an Advanced Gelatinous Cube?:smallcool:

[Boci]

Why would that make a difference?

Because then he initatives the grapple with on his second attack, the one granted by flurry, and uses his 2nd attack from BAB to pin. Unless I completly missunderstood you.

[DragoonWraith]

So Flicker: You wouldn't allow someone to Trip with an attack from Haste? You wouldn't let a Monk Disarm on a Flurry?

I don't care to go through the RAW, but I think no matter what the rules actually say on the matter, to differentiate between attacks from BAB and other attacks for the purpose of special attacks is just overly pedantic.

[Flickerdart]

Because then he initatives the grapple with on his second attack, the one granted by flurry, and uses his 2nd attack from BAB to pin. Unless I completly missunderstood you.
Hm, that's certainly an interesting way of looking at it. In fact, one could argue that the extra attacks granted by Flurry go first (f/+8/+3). I'm not aware of any ruling made on the issue.

[Prodan]

Flurry does have its own "modified" BAB.

[Doc Roc]

Dungeoncrasher Fighter with a Longspear vs. an Advanced Gelatinous Cube?:smallcool:

I lawl'd, I'll admit. But I think G-cubes actually begin to evaporate rapidly when killed, or at least lose their shape. And if you don't kill it, it'll disintegrate your spear eventually, escaping. So, on the whole, a not-very-satisfying nailing.

You will find my post.... much expanded, by the way. :: sheepish :: Very much (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8585033&postcount=357) expanded.

[Flickerdart]

Flurry does have its own "modified" BAB.

Yes, it has a BAB, but it's not an attack from high BAB.

[Doc Roc]

It does appear that there is a reasonable chance that if a monk could reliably hit his or her opponent, he or she could grapple from any attack made from BAB. Intent allows me to comfortably suggest that Flurry attacks are fine here, and haste or similar probably is too. But who knows if it is the case? It's not definite, and I can think of balance reasons why it might not be.

Might not have been intended, that is. Obviously, the balance falls against grapple as is. So:

If a monk can hit, he or she can grapple.
If a he or she is not two sizes smaller.
If he or she can win the opposed grapple.
If the attack of opportunity provided does not hit.
If he or she is not going to get summarily murdered while grappling and pinning.
If he or she is not attacking something that has SLAs which might be murderous or allow it to escape trivially.
If he or she is not then out of attacks, he or she can attempt to pin.

How common are enormous wizards? Actually, I've seen wizards all the way up to colossal, though I wish it wasn't so. Heck, I've seen wizards who rode around inside iron golems. I would not wish to grapple them.

[Gametime]

I think we've come to a consensus on the grapple->pin issue, but for what it's worth the Rules Compendium explicitly states that if you start a grapple successfully and have attacks remaining, you can follow up with a special grapple maneuver. This wording doesn't seem to discriminate depending on whether the attacks are from a high base attack bonus or another source.

It does specify that you need multiple attacks from a high base attack bonus to make multiple attacks to start a grapple from one full attack action. Taking the rules exactly as written, it seems that this means a monk with a BAB lower than +6 would not be able to make multiple grapple attempts despite having multiple attacks from flurry; however, upon reaching +6 BAB, he would be able to use all of his attacks to make grapple/pin/whatever attempts, even the ones derived from flurry and not BAB.

I'm nearly certain that's not the intended reading, though.

[DragoonWraith]

You will find my post.... much expanded, by the way. :: sheepish :: Very much (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8585033&postcount=357) expanded.
I actually really liked that post. Thanks, I enjoyed reading it.

[Gametime]

*distillated eloquence*

For what it's worth, that was one of the most thoughtful and engaging posts I've had the pleasure of reading on this forum. Thanks for that.

You make a good point that PCs - any PCs - are unnaturally hard to kill. A commoner* with sufficient wealth and determination can hide from a high-level wizard for several rounds, if he has favorable terrain and a few items that produce full concealment. The problem comes when the commoner realizes he has no way to penetrate the wizard's defenses, and it's a problem that isn't really solved by the class features of any melee classes.

*Who we'll assume isn't riding dinosaurs at level 4, since that makes the whole thing somewhat less impressive.

[Doc Roc]

Given that you and Dragoon are two of the posters I respect most, outside of the wonderful ToS crew who are, at this point, more like very close friends than forumites...

It means quite a lot.

[DragoonWraith]

Given that you and Dragoon are two of the posters I respect most, outside of the wonderful ToS crew who are, at this point, more like very close friends than forumites...

It means quite a lot.
Wow, thanks a... ton seems inadequate. That's about as high praise as anyone here can offer me, I think. Thank you.

[Doc Roc]

Wow, thanks a... ton seems inadequate. That's about as high praise as anyone here can offer me, I think. Thank you.

Praise, freely given, is permitted to masquerade as the truth, which in turn requires no gratitude, merely awareness. In short, you are welcome. :)


I'm thinking of changing it up to kettle corn for the next one, just for some variety.

I sincerely hope that one of these days, I'll actually get some physical popcorn from you out of a thread like this.

[Gametime]

Given that you and Dragoon are two of the posters I respect most, outside of the wonderful ToS crew who are, at this point, more like very close friends than forumites...

It means quite a lot.

Thank you. That is, as DragoonWraith says, extremely high praise, and I appreciate it greatly.

[Sir Giacomo]

Just now able to check the forum again after a week of absence, and I see Doc Roc's longest post...




Precis:
This is the longest post I think I've ever written. Please read it.
I know, it looks dull. But it has a neat story in it.

Precis of the Precis:
There is no Precis.

Just a note on the listen stuff. I've used it pretty extensively in wizard\monk\fighter duels and similar stuff, on both sides. And it is not easy to use for either party, nor is it easy to defend against.

Unless of course, you're a spell caster and you can drop a silence on yourself and grab that rod of silent spell you carry around. Or maybe you can fly at ~100 feet per round, so you just put enough distance in so that listen penalties are out-right vicious. Or you might simply have ranked and buffed move silently. Or possibly you teleport using swift action stuff. Or you have abrupt jaunt. Or you have a familiar with a rod of benign transposition and a readied action.

What I'm getting at is that monk or fighter, or any PC played well is as hard to kill reliably as nailing jello to a wall. Killing Wizards, however, is more like trying to nail smoke to a star.

We've done this. Heck, I've made a game of doing this and helping people do this for literally more than a year now. I don't play D&D 3.x. I play D&D PvP Edition. I have, indirectly, the blood of more ECL 13 characters on my hands than anyone else here, or possibly anywhere. ECL 13 is the tipping point, the balancing cusp beyond which 3.x explodes into a very pretty hellstorm of madness. I've followed this whole thread, and I think people are leaving out some crucial facts.

The Tier systems are the product of empirical evidence and voting by an informed audience. Many of whom had read the crunch of every single 3.x book Wizards ever printed, thought about it, and discussed it for almost 9 years. It is not a work of art. It is not science. It is still an opinion. But in this industry, it's darn-tooting closer to rock-solid fact as you'll ever come.

I would say that more serious thought by smart people has been devoted to 3.x than any other P&P game, and probably any other tabletop game. The opinion that Monks are at least moderately weaker in their optimum state than the practical optimum of wizards is one that I would comfortably rely on. Not because I like it.

I hate Wizards.
I hate Clerics.
Even my adoration for Archivists is nested in a lake of molten guilt.

I grew up playing monks and paladins in 2e. I played tons of CRPGs, and sat at any table which would have me. I was rambunctious and thought I knew my stuff. I thought I was the king-killer, a titan of intellect. I was wrong. I'm only reasonably smart. I found this out when I kept playing monks, kept getting excited about 12d6 damage, and then dropped in on the Wizards of the Coasts forum to read about how right I definitely was.

What I found shocked me. There was no one! No one! Where were the monk builds? So I retreated. I found monk builds here and there. Got hugely excited about things that I now know to be deeply illegitimate from the stand point of rules or even logic. I read builds on D&D Wiki for goodness sake! And I sharpened what I imagined to be skills. I hadn't even heard of Divine Power yet, or any of the other things that in actuality shape the face of D&D 3.x's strange and bitter majesties. Because it is majestic. People forget what a daybreak 3.0 was. It brought rationality and promises of balance and reliable fun. Sure, some promises were broken. And sure, 3.x isn't my favorite game anymore.

That doesn't make it bad. And I learned that as I learned about the strange masteries that an arcanist can articulate in D&D. As I read warily about Tiers. As I learned that perhaps my ideas were wrong. What?

Yes. Yes, I learned. I know that for those who know me only here, the idea of my opinion waffling so easily seems odd. So let me clarify. It took almost eight months for me to face down the idea that the classes were not even. To start running numbers and reading handbooks. To start writing carefully about this weird and deeply esoteric topic. So why am I telling you this?

Well, now? I'm probably near the top of my intellectual weight-class when it comes to D&D. Not that this is saying that much. I'm not very clever. And a linchpin in this is that I learned and read and listened. And sure, sometimes people were wrong. And sure, there was a period of time where arcanists were thought of as mere blasters. But a lot of thought and movement in the community has dragged the opinion away. Why?

Why only away? Because grasping the power of what an arcanist can do in D&D is difficult. Intensely so. And some of it is made ridiculous by the narrative safe-guards inherent in running your game on sentient wetware. :) A lot of it, really.

But not all.
The fact remains that a wizard carries in his back pocket more encounter-ending options that are relevant across all levels than almost any other class from ANY game. In some senses, they represent a huge triumph of design. Playing a wizard is like having a mad scientist capering for your delight. Mechanically differentiated at an often very deep level, spells represent something wicked cool.

But they, and all full-casters with them, are badly, deeply, horribly broken in ways that are literally so ridiculous as to seem like jokes. So bad that we talk about agreements between gentlemen and ladies at the tables we sit, agreements that annihilate entire swaths of their spells. Literally, that kill entire sets of class features. We talk about defending against wizards, and how there are so many ways to counter their tricks. Mentioning, of course, in passing, that they have many many tricks. So many.

And that all of their tricks need to be countered. Because one wizard could have any of many tricks. Many of which are unique or terrifying or wholly orthogonal to the rest of the powers they wield. And this? This is just in core.


It is my respectful opinion that the following thesis:
The game called D&D 3.x is composed of largely balanced classes which offer similar gaming experiences when it comes to what they can do to manipulate the complicated game world, solve problems, and otherwise be engaged in the story.

Is total bullocks.



Doc Roc, allow me to reply.

I whole-heartedly agree to your thesis. Yes, the game called D&D 3.x is not composed of largely balanced classes when you apply ALL the stuff ever published.
There is only a rough balance of classes with the core rules. Once outside core rules, everything tilts in the direction of casters. Simply because more optional rules and advantages are published for them. Do not ask me. Ask WoTC for their marketing strategy.
Unfortunately, though, you also deny that there is class balance when just applying the core rules.

I shall pick out two of your comments of what you said and use that to entirely disprove this.

1. "The opinion that Monks are at least moderately weaker in their optimum state than the practical optimum of wizards is one that I would comfortably rely on. Not because I like it.

I hate Wizards.
I hate Clerics.
Even my adoration for Archivists is nested in a lake of molten guilt.

I grew up playing monks and paladins in 2e. I played tons of CRPGs, and sat at any table which would have me. I was rambunctious and thought I knew my stuff. I thought I was the king-killer, a titan of intellect. I was wrong. I'm only reasonably smart. I found this out when I kept playing monks, kept getting excited about 12d6 damage, and then dropped in on the Wizards of the Coasts forum to read about how right I definitely was.

What I found shocked me. There was no one! No one! Where were the monk builds? So I retreated. I found monk builds here and there. Got hugely excited about things that I now know to be deeply illegitimate from the stand point of rules or even logic. I read builds on D&D Wiki for goodness sake! And I sharpened what I imagined to be skills. I hadn't even heard of Divine Power yet, or any of the other things that in actuality shape the face of D&D 3.x's strange and bitter majesties. Because it is majestic. People forget what a daybreak 3.0 was. It brought rationality and promises of balance and reliable fun. Sure, some promises were broken. And sure, 3.x isn't my favorite game anymore."

This is what really intrigues me. For, you know, if you REALLY were so eager to find ways to see non-casting classes stronger, you sure are doing a lot of effort that no rule is ever interpreted to see casters weaker or non-casters stronger. Or, for that matter, that the moment someone comes up with ideas to counter caster power, you reject it.
Instead, though, you focus on threads like this one displaying your best tricks (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=137447), where it is quite clear that you relish in all things that casters do and not one recommendation is there that shows what non-casters can do.

So to sum up, you started out thinking non-casters classes are as strong as caster classes but since you gave up the first moment someone on some boards somewhere said "naw, but Wizards RULE!"
And instead of trying to fill the gap left by optimisers, you just chose to walk down the dark path of caster uberness believers ..:smallwink:
In fact, you add your experience with the Test of Spite as evidence that core is broken - although Test of Spite rules are not core only.

2. "The fact remains that a wizard carries in his back pocket more encounter-ending options that are relevant across all levels than almost any other class from ANY game. In some senses, they represent a huge triumph of design. Playing a wizard is like having a mad scientist capering for your delight. Mechanically differentiated at an often very deep level, spells represent something wicked cool.

But they, and all full-casters with them, are badly, deeply, horribly broken in ways that are literally so ridiculous as to seem like jokes. So bad that we talk about agreements between gentlemen and ladies at the tables we sit, agreements that annihilate entire swaths of their spells. Literally, that kill entire sets of class features. We talk about defending against wizards, and how there are so many ways to counter their tricks. Mentioning, of course, in passing, that they have many many tricks. So many.

And that all of their tricks need to be countered. Because one wizard could have any of many tricks. Many of which are unique or terrifying or wholly orthogonal to the rest of the powers they wield. "

To this, I have a short answer: you are committing the mistake of all who believe in caster superiority: you confound casters with magic.
Yes, magic makes all things in D&D at high levels really go nuts. But magic is available to all classes, if not via class abilities, then via a vast amount of magic items. In the DMG, the explicit advice is to follow the wbl tables or an unbalanced game ensues. Magic items are used to balance everything out that casters can do with magic of their own at high levels.

- Giacomo

PS: With PhoenixRivers banned, would you wish to do a core duel wizard vs fighter against me? I think it is time...

[Fax Celestis]

To this, I have a short answer: you are committing the mistake of all who believe in caster superiority: you confound casters with magic.
Yes, magic makes all things in D&D at high levels really go nuts. But magic is available to all classes, if not via class abilities, then via a vast amount of magic items. In the DMG, the explicit advice is to follow the wbl tables or an unbalanced game ensues. Magic items are used to balance everything out that casters can do with magic of their own at high levels.

This would be relevant if WBL counted spells. It does not. Wizards get just as much magic stuff as anyone else, and still get their cartload of spells atop that.

[Sir Giacomo]

This would be relevant if WBL counted spells. It does not. Wizards get just as much magic stuff as anyone else, and still get their cartload of spells atop that.

Two answers to this:
1. Wizards are the weakest of all classes when just looking at their base makeup (BAB, hp, AC, saves, skills to a certain degree when abstracting from INT). So, they have to use up many of their daily spell repertoire to just get to a similar degree of survivability as the other classes.
2. Spells and magic have a declining marginal rate of utility. Yes, that 5th teleport of the day may be of some use, but boots of teleporting usually just provide all the teleporting you usually need during the day. Etc.

- Giacomo

[Fax Celestis]

Point #1 neglects the wizard's primary class feature: spellcasting. It is, far and away, better than nearly anything else. A wizard's power is his option availability. A single-classed human fighter gets 18 options (his feats) over the course of his entire career, and he cannot (barring cheese) change them. A single-classed human wizard gets four options at first level (three first-level spells and two feats), and passes the fighter's 18 options by 7th level, assuming he doesn't purchase or create any spells.

Point #2 falsely assumes that a wizard prepares multiple instances of spells. Most do not, with a few specific spell exceptions.

[Boci]

2. Spells and magic have a declining marginal rate of utility. Yes, that 5th teleport of the day may be of some use, but boots of teleporting usually just provide all the teleporting you usually need during the day. Etc.

Yes and for the price you paid for those boots a caster could get 2 pearls of power for an extra two 5th level spells each day, which is also generally as much teleportation as you need, and is far more versatile.

[Flickerdart]

Point #1 also incorrectly assumes that Wizards need to bother with all the BAB and skill points when they can be doing better things (like creating entire warriors from scratch or controlling the minds of others, or building planes, or snuffing out enemies' lives with a single action, or any number of things that are better than +1 BAB and +1d10 HP).

[Boci]

Magic items are used to balance everything out that casters can do with magic of their own at high levels.

Wizard: Hey melee class. You know all those magic items that almost make you equal to me? Well hyou can't use one of them for 1d4 rounds. puff, boots of flying supressed.
Fighter: Oh yeah, well your spells are also going. puff, nothing
Wizard: Too bad magic items have a static caster level.

[Doc Roc]

I do not, generally, interpret rules. I do not try and read into them. I take the simplest meanings, where I can, and the most direct readings. I use the rules as I have seen them run by the vast majority of the GMs I know and have encountered. I do not believe that by simply re-reading and reinterpreting a few things here or there that we can gain anything. Your readings are at best stretches, ones that you would be hard-pressed to get a GM to agree with.

Might I suggest that rather than interpretations, you offer up your readings as valuable and potentially worthwhile houserules? I think you would find the rest of us somewhat more amenable.

As for the other points...

Builds and tricks:
I have a long history on other boards, where I have posted innumerable non-caster builds. I have no taste remaining for such things, and no desire to spend the hundreds of hours that it required to create melee characters who approached the desired level of competency. It is too much for too little.

On opinions:
I did not agree with "Some guy." I took to heart the wisdom of entire communities, backed by careful testing and strong mathematical theory. In the scientific community, this is how things work. I am a scientist. I am not an artist. I am not a writer. I am a builder of things, accustomed to reading carefully and thinking hard.

On Core:
I would say that the game is more balanced outside of core, rather than less. Hence my citation of Test of Spite, which has an enormous ban-list targeting primarily the abilities of casters. The Jakeverse thread you mentioned consists of almost entirely things that we ban in ToS.


***
Wishful thinking is useless. What is going to save your gear-laden monk from watching his entire EWL be blown away by a single maximized chain lightning targeting his items?

[Gametime]

So to sum up, you started out thinking non-casters classes are as strong as caster classes but since you gave up the first moment someone on some boards somewhere said "naw, but Wizards RULE!"

Doc Roc is a really smart guy. I find it hard to believe that he has founded his beliefs purely on the unsubstantiated opinions of forum posters on the internet.

Giacomo, you often advocate interpreting rules in such a way that casters are not invincible and melee have more advantages. While I think this is a fine position to take for actual games, and is even fine when both interpretations (pro- or anti-caster, to simplify) are equally valid.

But when a rule is more validly interpreted as favoring casters, to interpret it another way simply to make casters less powerful is unhelpful when we are discussing the actual rules of the game. To say "a good DM should make sure caster PCs do not overshadow non-caster PCs" is perfectly true. To say that the rules themselves prevent casters from overshadowing non-casters is dishonest.

Doc Roc isn't trying to say that wizards should be more powerful. He's saying that if you take the books at face value, they are. Interpreting the rules differently for no reason other than to achieve balance is admirable in a game, but much less so in a discussion of the actual rules.


Two answers to this:
1. Wizards are the weakest of all classes when just looking at their base makeup (BAB, hp, AC, saves, skills to a certain degree when abstracting from INT). So, they have to use up many of their daily spell repertoire to just get to a similar degree of survivability as the other classes.

Two objections:
1. Wizards don't have to use that many spells to achieve parity in physical statistics. Polymorph is usually plenty. (And yes, I know Polymorph is horrifically broken. That's the point. Wizards certainly function much less well in melee combat without it, but spells like that are the reason we argue wizards are too powerful in the first place.)

Also, wizards have spells that can achieve superiority in movement and positioning for a much lower cost than other classes. Flight, teleporting, and invisibility are all available to the wizard sooner and cheaper than they are for other classes. At levels after these come online for the wizard but before they do for the other classes, that can be huge.

2. Although their class skill list is inferior to many others' (although not, I would argue, to the fighter's, who has an inexcusably horrible list), abstracting from intelligence is a misleading way of looking at things. A wizard needs intelligence, first and foremost. They are almost certainly going to have a higher intelligence than a fighter (or even rogue) of comparable level. They will have less skill points than a skillmonkey, but probably more than a fighter, or a monk. To pretend that this isn't usually the case does little to accredit your argument in light of actual gameplay.


2. Spells and magic have a declining marginal rate of utility. Yes, that 5th teleport of the day may be of some use, but boots of teleporting usually just provide all the teleporting you usually need during the day. Etc.


This is true, to a point. However, there are a lot of spells that aren't easily replicated by magic items. In addition, not needing to spend money on, say, Boots of Teleporting means that you can more easily afford scrolls (to further diversify your daily available spells) or expensive material components (so you can wander around with a Simulacrum) or what have you.

If he really wants to, the wizard could even buy Boots of Teleporting for himself and prepare another offensive 5th-level spell instead.

Spells give wizards options. Magic items give every class options. The fact that the wizard inherently gets some of the options presented by magic items does little to close the gap - it just means they can pick the magic items that do expand their arsenal, and end up with options the other classes can't match.

Heck, the fighter's only class feature is bonus feats. Every class gets feats, too. By your logic, this means that the fighter's class feature is of little use because, after all, who needs that many feats?

[Starbuck_II]

Wizard: Hey melee class. You know all those magic items that almost make you equal to me? Well hyou can't use one of them for 1d4 rounds. puff, boots of flying supressed.
Fighter: Oh yeah, well your spells are also going. puff, nothing
Wizard: Too bad magic items have a static caster level.

Wait, 1d4 rds? The Wizard can supress it for 1 rd/lv if he has Incarnum casting.

Seriously, just 1 feat to stop magic itemd all battle.

[Flickerdart]

Wait, 1d4 rds? The Wizard can supress it for 1 rd/lv if he has Incarnum casting.

Seriously, just 1 feat to stop magic itemd all battle.
Giacomo does not believe in non-core, I don't think.

[Sir Giacomo]

I do not, generally, interpret rules. I do not try and read into them. I take the simplest meanings, where I can, and the most direct readings. I use the rules as I have seen them run by the vast majority of the GMs I know and have encountered. I do not believe that by simply re-reading and reinterpreting a few things here or there that we can gain anything. Your readings are at best stretches, ones that you would be hard-pressed to get a GM to agree with.

Ok...let us take the rod of cancellation question where you supported PhoenixRiver's caster-friendly interpretation.
Basically, the rod of cancellation gets used up the moment you use it to destroy a magic item. But no mention of spells is made. PHB then comes up with some spells that are destroyed by rod of cancellation. Wall of Force spell, incredibly powerful for a 5th level spell, is among them.
Your interpretation of the rules inserts a "...and spells..."to the passage "...upon draining an item..." when it comes to the use-up of the rod of cancellation. Mine does not do this.
And - tadaaa - following my interpretation all of a sudden the alleged "win button" wall of force /forcecage is no more a win button, but everyone can - at the levels that these effects turn up - have a method to counter it. The hallmarks of balance.
Yet -what do you do? You interpret the rod of cancellation in such a way that this only possible at prohibitive price (a price btw that is completely out of line with what the magic item creation rules would say). Thus, de facto not possible.
And here you are and call my kind of interpretation as "stretching the rules".
What rule interpretation would the average DM follow? One that lets one class rule completely in his campaign, or one that keeps classes balanced? Your pick.

This is the point where I question your motives, and that of many who support caster power. Since my first post here I have slowly come to believe:
It is not that those who believe in caster class superiority WISH at all to come up with any in-game solutions to this. You like the way things are. And the moment someone like me appears pointing out some ways to remedy it within the rules, you go through the roof. As if I were the DM telling you that you have completely broken interpretations of what your wizard character can do and thus you feel "nerfed".


Might I suggest that rather than interpretations, you offer up your readings as valuable and potentially worthwhile houserules? I think you would find the rest of us somewhat more amenable.

I am actually completely baffled by the fact that we all would agree on the outcome (="We want balanced classes for playing"), and that you also would like to have simple solutions to get there.
Then, I offer some simple and imo reasonable rules interpretations to achieve this, which you and others zealously oppose.
You, however, explicitly (cf. Test of Spite) as solutions to flawed rules interpretations of yours introduce dozens of obvious houserules (banning whole classes? Come on!), which have immense unpredictable repercussions for the whole balance of classes. (like, for instance, banning the major non-caster melee buff, polymorph, allegedly to keep caster power in check. Oh my).
And that is going to be simpler? In any case, it is way more unbalanced and complicated, the more houserules and non-core stuff you add.
Really, this is the biggest mystery of all for me.


As for the other points...

Builds and tricks:
I have a long history on other boards, where I have posted innumerable non-caster builds. I have no taste remaining for such things, and no desire to spend the hundreds of hours that it required to create melee characters who approached the desired level of competency. It is too much for too little.


Maybe you could link some of what you did and I'll maybe be able to tell you where your mistakes were that you came to this conclusion?
My slight suspicion is that you built melee characters and gave up on them since they allegedly are
- unable to combat flying opponents (er...hello, magic items, jump skill or missile weapons?)
- unable to escape from a force cage (see rod of cancellation discussion above)
- etc...


On opinions:
I did not agree with "Some guy." I took to heart the wisdom of entire communities, backed by careful testing and strong mathematical theory. In the scientific community, this is how things work. I am a scientist. I am not an artist. I am not a writer. I am a builder of things, accustomed to reading carefully and thinking hard.

On Core:
I would say that the game is more balanced outside of core, rather than less. Hence my citation of Test of Spite, which has an enormous ban-list targeting primarily the abilities of casters. The Jakeverse thread you mentioned consists of almost entirely things that we ban in ToS.

You say you took to heart the wisdom of the entire communities, backed by careful testing and strong mathematical theory - and yet you say that the game is more balanced outside of core? WHAT?
Maybe you have overlooked some simple facts:
- non-core the game multiplies the possibilities of what casters can do, simply they got more rules expansions. It could be a mere quantitative phenomenon, but from what we see from your own trick thread and spell recommendation threads of others, it is clear that some ultra-powerful magic lurks outside core that dwarfs even the more power-heavy interpretations of core spells.
- the caster-power mechanic of immediate and swift action spells from level 1 ALONE completely tilts the balance to their favour.
- meanwhile, the options of non-casters are automatically more limited outside core since new feats and ACF are just squeezed into the more limited channels they have.
- additionally, you get rulebooks that with one insufficient sentence DM suggestion (optional rule within optional rule so to speak, say hello to unarmed swordsage) or a simple feat are intended to replace whole non-caster core classes (say hello to Talashatora or whatever that is called). What a big surprise that the old core non-caster base classes then all of a sudden are not that competitive any more.:smallwink:



***
Wishful thinking is useless. What is going to save your gear-laden monk from watching his entire EWL be blown away by a single maximized chain lightning targeting his items?

I am eager to find out how the chain lightning could "blow away" his items when the monk cannot be targeted (hide class skill, for instance)? Or, for that matter, when his items cannot be targeted (concealed under his clothes)? Or, for that matter, when his improved evasion and high reflex save guarantees that the items are not even touched even if you could target them?
Sometimes I wonder, if you even read the complete monk class description. A class, you allegedly liked to play and optimised when you started playing 3.x

But I repeat my offer: let us try a core duel. Your wizard. My fighter or monk. Choose the level. I'll not be able to post that often, but we can try to see what happens.

- Giacomo

[Prodan]

Your interpretation of the rules inserts a "...and spells..."to the passage "...upon draining an item..." when it comes to the use-up of the rod of cancellation. Mine does not do this.
Correct, though your interpretation of the rules instead inserts a "... and using it on spells does not drain the Rod" clause to the item description.



This is the point where I question your motives, and that of many who support caster power. Since my first post here I have slowly come to believe:
It is not that those who believe in caster class superiority WISH at all to come up with any in-game solutions to this. You like the way things are. And the moment someone like me appears pointing out some ways to remedy it within the rules, you go through the roof. As if I were the DM telling you that you have completely broken interpretations of what your wizard character can do and thus you feel "nerfed".
There's a saying about a pot.


My slight suspicion is that you built melee characters and gave up on them since they allegedly are
- unable to combat flying opponents (er...hello, magic items, jump skill or missile weapons?)
- unable to escape from a force cage (see rod of cancellation discussion above)
- etc...
1. Melee characters can only fly for relatively short periods of time with items, can't always jump to reach enemies who are flying high above them, and missile weapons can be defeated by a third level spell. This is problematic.
2. The Rod can be Disjunctioned. This will be problematic.



- non-core the game multiplies the possibilities of what casters can do, simply they got more rules expansions. It could be a mere quantitative phenomenon, but from what we see from your own trick thread and spell recommendation threads of others, it is clear that some ultra-powerful magic lurks outside core that dwarfs even the more power-heavy interpretations of core spells.
Magic gets weaker in core, true, but so does melee. Melee suffers much more from what I can tell.



- additionally, you get rulebooks that with one insufficient sentence DM suggestion (optional rule within optional rule so to speak, say hello to unarmed swordsage) or a simple feat are intended to replace whole non-caster core classes (say hello to Talashatora or whatever that is called). What a big surprise that the old core non-caster base classes then all of a sudden are not that competitive any more
Actually, the Barbarian remains competitive with ToB classes, mainly because violence is a viable way to solve problems.


I am eager to find out how the chain lightning could "blow away" his items when the monk cannot be targeted (hide class skill, for instance)?
Shapechange into something with Blindsight would be my best guess for this one.

Alternatively, since concealment or cover is necessary to hide, get rid of it.

Alternatively, use Mage's Faithful Hound.


Or, for that matter, when his items cannot be targeted (concealed under his clothes)?
Target clothing with Chain Lightening first.

Or, for that matter, when his improved evasion and high reflex save guarantees that the items are not even touched even if you could target them?If rendered helpless, evasion does not apply. I guess the question is, if the target can be rendered helpless.



Sometimes I wonder, if you even read the complete monk class description. A class, you allegedly liked to play and optimised when you started playing 3.x

As an aside, I find it interesting that you question the competence of people who disagree with you.


------------------------------------------

Wow, DragoonWraith was right...

[Boci]

Yet -what do you do? You interpret the rod of cancellation in such a way that this only possible at prohibitive price (a price btw that is completely out of line with what the magic item creation rules would say). Thus, de facto not possible.

Yes, his interpretation of the rules, along with everyone else on the thread. I remember it, and I am 99% sure that no one else subscribed to your interpretation. Its clearly a one shot item.



- non-core the game multiplies the possibilities of what casters can do, simply they got more rules expansions. It could be a mere quantitative phenomenon, but from what we see from your own trick thread and spell recommendation threads of others, it is clear that some ultra-powerful magic lurks outside core that dwarfs even the more power-heavy interpretations of core spells.

Can you give examples of non-core spells that are always mentioned? I know orb spells will always be broght up about because they allow blasters to not suck so must, and skitter nerve usually gets an mention because its level 1 and doesn't really hurt your action economy, but apart from that I cannot think of many.
Melee gains more than casters from splat books, because melee did not have much at all in core.


- additionally, you get rulebooks that with one insufficient sentence DM suggestion (optional rule within optional rule so to speak, say hello to unarmed swordsage) or a simple feat are intended to replace whole non-caster core classes (say hello to Talashatora or whatever that is called). What a big surprise that the old core non-caster base classes then all of a sudden are not that competitive any more.:smallwink:

And the fact that these new merlee class's do not overshadow core wizard (if they're in the same party) doesn't say anything to you?


I am eager to find out how the chain lightning could "blow away" his items when the monk cannot be targeted (hide class skill, for instance)?


Glitter dust, summon monster something with scent. Oh, core spells.

[Kaiyanwang]

Can you give examples of non-core spells that are always mentioned? I know orb spells will always be broght up about because they allow blasters to not suck so must, and skitter nerve usually gets an mention because its level 1 and doesn't really hurt your action economy, but apart from that I cannot think of many.
Melee gains more than casters from splat books, because melee did not have much at all in core.


I see what are you doing - and I generally open the first splat in a campaign after a melee character request.

But, for non core, we have a big offender: celerity.

[Boci]

I see what are you doing - and I generally open the first splat in a campaign after a melee character request.

But, for non core, we have a big offender: celerity.

Fair point. I was assuming (but forgot to mention) that we would dicount those splat book spells on the ToS ban list, since obviously more books is more opertunities to make mistakes.

[DragoonWraith]

Celerity and Shivering Touch are the only truly massive offenders outside of Core. They're the only ones that reach the level of Polymorph, Teleport, Gate, Time Stop, Freedom of Movement, Mind Blank, and the like.

[Sir Giacomo]

Correct, though your interpretation of the rules instead inserts a "... and using it on spells does not drain the Rod" clause to the item description.

The big difference is: my interpretation does not need to add anything, whereas Doc Roc's and PhoenixRivers' (and apparently yours) needs to add something. This is definitely more "stretching". Plus, your interpretation leads to a less balanced outcome, mine leads to balanced outcome. Again: What do you think would DMs usually follow?


There's a saying about a pot.

And it does not apply here. Your next comments will show why.


1. Melee characters can only fly for relatively short periods of time with items, can't always jump to reach enemies who are flying high above them, and missile weapons can be defeated by a third level spell. This is problematic.
2. The Rod can be Disjunctioned. This will be problematic.

You see, I said that there are ways around the problem for meleer against flying creatures. Not that, again, there are no countermeasures by the flyer against this (and countermeasures against that and so on and so on - the hallmark for balance).
Also, for longer flight periods, broom of flying or wings of flying or flying carpet items or flying mount items come to mind.
And missile weapons cannot get defeated by a wind wall spell, since you can just move through them and shoot on the other side. Plus, for a flying opponent able to cast a wind wall, it keeps him quite close to the ground since the wind wall needs to be shaped along the ground. I wonder how often I will have to point to that "wind wall makes archers redundant" fallacy.
And yes, a rod can be disjunctioned. And again there are ways against this (in particular at those levels that disjunctions come up). And counterways against the counters. etc.


Magic gets weaker in core, true, but so does melee. Melee suffers much more from what I can tell.

My issue is not that magic is as strong as melee. It always is more powerful, at higher levels, even in core. This is simply a consequence of a fantasy game with magic imo.
All I am saying is that non-casters using magic are equal in power to casters in core.


Actually, the Barbarian remains competitive with ToB classes, mainly because violence is a viable way to solve problems.

The barbarian is completely inferior to the warblade.
Everytime somebody asks here "what do you think about this barbarian build" I could say "better play a warblade instead", as easily as all the times someone gets reprimanded for daring to want to play a monk and then being met by 10 simultaneous posts of "better play a swordsage instead".


Shapechange into something with Blindsight would be my best guess for this one.

Now, that's a good idea! If only...let me see what kind of core (i.e. MM, not psionic!) creatures have blindsight...
...ooze...can't cast disjunction because you need a vocal component for it.
...whale...ditto (plus, it's a bit subpar when not underwater...:smallwink:)
...grimlock...a good chance, but unfortunately its ability explicitly only applies to creatures (smell and hearing).
...darkmantle...can't speak
...assassin vine...can't speak either (and ability only locates "foes")
...yrthak...can't speak, despite their intelligence...
...destrachan...see yrthak....
...wraith...a good candidate - but can only locate creatures.
That's about it.
So...nope. Shapechange won't help.


Alternatively, since concealment or cover is necessary to hide, get rid of it.

You could target the clothes that cover/conceal the items as you suggested below, but there are some concealments that are really difficult to get rid of (for instance, eversmoking bottle), and definitely not with a chain lightning.


Alternatively, use Mage's Faithful Hound.

Which is unable to locate items.


Target clothing with Chain Lightning first.
If rendered helpless, evasion does not apply. I guess the question is, if the target can be rendered helpless.

Yes, that is really a good question. But once you really succeed to render a high-level, well-equipped monk helpless you do not really need to destroy his items with a chain lightning?
No. My opinion remains: chain lightning to just blast away a monk is one of the most useless ideas I ever heard to combat a monk. And definitely it is not a proof as Doc Roc suggested that a monk has no chance against a wizard in core. No shapechange, faithful hound or render-helpless tricks is going to change that.


As an aside, I find it interesting that you question the competence of people who disagree with you.

Do you think I get praised for my ideas? Check out the monk guide thread I onced did, just the first 20 posts as reaction to it to get an idea how a lot of posters react to what I say.
It is probably a nature of controversy that when someone says something you think is wrong that you say so. If I come across as putting into doubt everything or a lot what people say only because I show one aspect of their thinking is wrong, then I am sorry.
But when people use one certain idea or aspect to show that I am completely wrong with everything I say or with wide ranges of what I mean, then I use the disproving of that criticism to support the idea that I am right and they are wrong. Is that so wrong? :smallsmile:



------------------------------------------

Wow, DragoonWraith was right...

I wonder what your reaction to my post will be. I could not help but correcting you on several things that you suggested/maintained.

So far, when I saw that I made a mistake on these boards, I admitted it right away. Or asked for time to think about it. (PhoenixRivers for instance recently got me thinking a lot about what degree of metagaming the rules assume in case of spells, monsters, and items. I still think on it).
DragoonWraith apparently did not even want to start to discuss with me. You obviously did not think that was right, or you would not have tried...

- Giacomo

[afroakuma]

Why do any of you persist in arguing with him? It never helps.

Doc Roc, your talents are entirely wasted in this arena, I fear. Same goes for a few others.

[Fax Celestis]

It is probably a nature of controversy that when someone says something you think is wrong that you say so. If I come across as putting into doubt everything or a lot what people say only because I show one aspect of their thinking is wrong, then I am sorry.
But when people use one certain idea or aspect to show that I am completely wrong with everything I say or with wide ranges of what I mean, then I use the disproving of that criticism to support the idea that I am right and they are wrong. Is that so wrong? :smallsmile:

Yes, it is.

You have been refuted time and time again, and every time someone attempts to do so a further time, you invoke arbitrary limitations--your latest appears to be 'core only'. For instance, if I were asked about a way to obtain Blindsight, I would indicate the second-level spell listening lorecall from Complete Adventurer, reprinted in Spell Compendium. Its best use is to make potions of it and give it to scouts, as it gives blindsight, blindsense, and a bonus on perception-based checks based upon the target's Listen ranks. However, your core-only designation makes that impossible, thereby strengthening your argument by limitation of commonly-used material. Also, when you say "core only", do you mean PHB/DMG/MM-I, or do you mean "anything you can find in the SRD", or do you perhaps mean "only OGL/Fair Use material"?

You find strength in vagueness and backing where there is none.

[Prodan]

I wonder what would happen if Doc Roc won.

[afroakuma]

Prodan: nothing productive.

[Sir Giacomo]

Yes, it is.

You have been refuted time and time again, and every time someone attempts to do so a further time, you invoke arbitrary limitations--your latest appears to be 'core only'. For instance, if I were asked about a way to obtain Blindsight, I would indicate the second-level spell listening lorecall from Complete Adventurer, reprinted in Spell Compendium. Its best use is to make potions of it and give it to scouts, as it gives blindsight, blindsense, and a bonus on perception-based checks based upon the target's Listen ranks. However, your core-only designation makes that impossible, thereby strengthening your argument by limitation of commonly-used material. Also, when you say "core only", do you mean PHB/DMG/MM-I, or do you mean "anything you can find in the SRD", or do you perhaps mean "only OGL/Fair Use material"?

You find strength in vagueness and backing where there is none.

But I am not vague.I have been quite clear all the time.
Here again, my whole point is:
THE CORE RULES ARE BROADLY BALANCED.
THIS INCLUDES BALANCE OF CLASSES.
And by core, I use the most common definition: the three core rulebooks (PHB/DMG/MM), even denoted as such in the SRD.

This is not something I made up out of thin air. It has been my point for years now.

The moment you use non-core material, balance breaks down. You can still have a lot of fun, but basing notions that non-caster classes like monks, paladins and fighters are completely inferior in core rules on non-core gaming experience like Doc Roc does is simply something I object.

- Giacomo

[Aharon]

Actually, that's an interesting question.

@Giacomo:
What would be necessary to change your views?

Edit:
If Core means SRD to you, the wizard in the above example could use his resources to get an item of touchsight :smallwink:
Second Edit:
So any core battle would have to be decided before 5th level, when anybody has enough money to start a wish chain via candle of invocation anyway?
I just thought you claimed monks were ok. Claiming Core is balanced... is a completely different thing.

[mikej]

I wonder what would happen if Doc Roc won.

There would be an amazing drop in the lengths of Monk/Fighter threads that's for sure.

[Fax Celestis]

But I am not vague.I have been quite clear all the time.
Here again, my whole point is:
THE CORE RULES ARE BROADLY BALANCED.
THIS INCLUDES BALANCE OF CLASSES.
And by core, I use the most common definition: the three core rulebooks (PHB/DMG/MM), even denoted as such in the SRD.

Then answer me this:

What can a monk do at 17th level that can compare to obtaining four turns of actions (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/timeStop.htm)? Or compare to linking two planes of existence (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/gate.htm)? Summoning a couatl (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/summonMonsterIX.htm)? Turning into the biggest dragon you've ever seen (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/shapechange.htm)?

[Greenish]

There would be an amazing drop in the lengths of Monk/Fighter threads that's for sure.Haha, we have here a good old-fashioned optimist!

Nah, it doesn't matter how often level 13 wizard beats the level 20 fighter. Giacomo has made up his mind and is not going to change his opinion.

[Flickerdart]

At 17th level? Replicate the effects of a 2nd level spell.

[9mm]

I believe that to date I have released over 6 fighter builds into ToS, along with several more mundane centric, many blatentently ingnoring parts of the ToS character creation guides: so far; only one has survived a qualifier or exhibition. While in the whole of Tos there have been exactly 2 non-magic builds that have warrented mention: Olo's hand crossbow suicide machine, and Sheeky's Takacshi. The number of the ToS explosions through the use of magic have been to numerable to count. It's time to face the facts Giacamo, if monks/fighters/paladins ect could have found a way to keep up against balls to wall optimized wisards, we would've found it by now.

[Sir Giacomo]

Actually, that's an interesting question.

@Giacomo:
What would be necessary to change your views?

I guess if someone could show me within the core rules that wizards would always win against fighters or monks, or can do everything they can and more, that would be a good start.

Many have tried that already, coming up with some alleged "spell win combos" which I all disproved or showed countermeasures against. What a lot of those who believe in caster superiority do is ignore what kind of magic items non-casters can get that either synergise well with their class abilities or even obstruct most of what casters can do.
A typical example is to believe that a wizard with shapechange can blow out of the water a monk in melee combat - but shapechange would be a buff with which the monk also would thrive (obtainable via ring of spell storing or UMDed scroll or custom item), and be again much, much better in melee than a wizard. Etc.

A duel imo - in case I win it or it ends in a draw which is more likely - would serve as a showcase of things that both contestants have not thought of yet. In this case, I'd have hope when Doc Roc sees what a fighter or monk at high levels can do within the core rules, he'd change is views on whether core or non-core environment is more balanced.

- Giacomo

[Fax Celestis]

I guess if someone could show me within the core rules that wizards would always win against fighters or monks, or can do everything they can and more, that would be a good start.

Many have tried that already, coming up with some alleged "spell win combos" which I all disproved or showed countermeasures against. What a lot of those who believe in caster superiority do is ignore what kind of magic items non-casters can get that either synergise well with their class abilities or even obstruct most of what casters can do.
A typical example is to believe that a wizard with shapechange can blow out of the water a monk in melee combat - but shapechange would be a buff with which the monk also would thrive (obtainable via ring of spell storing or UMDed scroll or custom item), and be again much, much better in melee than a wizard. Etc.

A duel imo - in case I win it or it ends in a draw which is more likely - would serve as a showcase of things that both contestants have not thought of yet. In this case, I'd have hope when Doc Roc sees what a fighter or monk at high levels can do within the core rules, he'd change is views on whether core or non-core environment is more balanced.

- Giacomo

This is where I pointedly notice you have failed to answer my question.

[Greenish]

A typical example is to believe that a wizard with shapechange can blow out of the water a monk in melee combat - but shapechange would be a buff with which the monk also would thrive (obtainable via ring of spell storing or UMDed scroll or custom item), and be again much, much better in melee than a wizard. Etc.Well, until the buff is dispelled. Good thing that wizards can't do anything like that.

[Boci]

I guess if someone could show me within the core rules that wizards would always win against fighters or monks, or can do everything they can and more, that would be a good start.- Giacomo

What about the fact that melee would have a hard time locating the BBEG's lair?
Finding the devil assassin hiding in a crowd at the prince's wedding?
Leave protection for the magistrate whilst he goes and saves her daughter from the vrocks?

[afroakuma]

It's sad that this keeps happening.

More good posters die to these threads than seemingly any other topic.

[hamishspence]

A typical example is to believe that a wizard with shapechange can blow out of the water a monk in melee combat - but shapechange would be a buff with which the monk also would thrive (obtainable via ring of spell storing or UMDed scroll or custom item), and be again much, much better in melee than a wizard. Etc.

The difference is- a monk has to spend a big chunk of his wealth on an item to cast the spell- a wizard doesn't- he can spend that wealth on something else that will help in some other way.

If you build a "spellcaster-killer monk" you need a lot of items, feats, and so on- valuable resources.

To build a monk-killing spellcaster, however, doesn't require all these items and feats.

[Greenish]

What about the fact that melee would have a hard time locating the BBEG's lair?
Finding the devil assassin hiding in a crowd at the prince's wedding?
Leave protection for the magistrate whilst he goes and saves her daughter from the vrocks?See, monks are as good as wizards, because they have rings of spellstoring and custom items that allow them to duplicate some of wizards' tricks!

[Prodan]

The big difference is: my interpretation does not need to add anything, whereas Doc Roc's and PhoenixRivers' (and apparently yours) needs to add something. This is definitely more "stretching".
Hold on. You intepretation does need to add something. To claim it does not is incorrect.


Plus, your interpretation leads to a less balanced outcome, mine leads to balanced outcome. Again: What do you think would DMs usually follow?
But that is beside the point of what the rules actually say, isn't it?


You see, I said that there are ways around the problem for meleer against flying creatures. Not that, again, there are no countermeasures by the flyer against this (and countermeasures against that and so on and so on - the hallmark for balance).
Just having countermeasures isn't the hallmark for balance, you know. Having effective countermeasures is.


Also, for longer flight periods, broom of flying or wings of flying or flying carpet items or flying mount items come to mind.
I thought of them too, but they don't really let someone fly as long as, say, a Dragon, do they?


And missile weapons cannot get defeated by a wind wall spell, since you can just move through them and shoot on the other side.
By them, do you refer to the wall?

What do you do if the wall has been shaped in such a way as you cannot move past it?


Plus, for a flying opponent able to cast a wind wall, it keeps him quite close to the ground since the wind wall needs to be shaped along the ground.[quote]
Range: Medium (100 ft. + 10 ft./level)

Is +100 feet "quite close" now?

[quote]I wonder how often I will have to point to that "wind wall makes archers redundant" fallacy.
Less often, if you had better countermeasures.


And yes, a rod can be disjunctioned. And again there are ways against this (in particular at those levels that disjunctions come up). And counterways against the counters. etc.
Shall I take your word for it?



My issue is not that magic is as strong as melee. It always is more powerful, at higher levels, even in core. This is simply a consequence of a fantasy game with magic imo.
All I am saying is that non-casters using magic are equal in power to casters in core.
So I've heard.


The barbarian is completely inferior to the warblade.
Everytime somebody asks here "what do you think about this barbarian build" [quote]
You must be building them wrong.

[quote]Now, that's a good idea! If only...let me see what kind of core (i.e. MM, not psionic!) creatures have blindsight...
...ooze...can't cast disjunction because you need a vocal component for it.
...whale...ditto (plus, it's a bit subpar when not underwater...:smallwink:)
...grimlock...a good chance, but unfortunately its ability explicitly only applies to creatures (smell and hearing).
...darkmantle...can't speak
...assassin vine...can't speak either (and ability only locates "foes")
...yrthak...can't speak, despite their intelligence...
...destrachan...see yrthak....
...wraith...a good candidate - but can only locate creatures.
That's about it.
So...nope. Shapechange won't help.
Do you know how much a metamagic rod of Silent Spell costs?


You could target the clothes that cover/conceal the items as you suggested below, but there are some concealments that are really difficult to get rid of (for instance, eversmoking bottle), and definitely not with a chain lightning.
That's more a job for something that generates wind and whatnot.




Which is unable to locate items.
Giacomo, you must be getting confused. I suggested the Faithful Hound as a way to locate someone who was hiding. You seem to have mistaken my suggestion for a way to locate items.

It's ok, I won't hold it against you. It's perfectly understandable; composing a reply of Homeric lengths is not the easiest thing in the world.



Yes, that is really a good question. But once you really succeed to render a high-level, well-equipped monk helpless you do not really need to destroy his items with a chain lightning?Au contraire, monamie.
There is every need to destroy his equipment with chain lightening.


No. My opinion remains: chain lightning to just blast away a monk is one of the most useless ideas I ever heard to combat a monk.
Nitpick: it's not really blasting away at the monk, just his items.


And definitely it is not a proof as Doc Roc suggested that a monk has no chance against a wizard in core. No shapechange, faithful hound or render-helpless tricks is going to change that.
Would definately love to see you prove this in a real game. You evidently have the time for it, if the posts of Jordanian lengths are anything to judge by.



Do you think I get praised for my ideas?
Should you?


Check out the monk guide thread I onced did, just the first 20 posts as reaction to it to get an idea how a lot of posters react to what I say.
It is probably a nature of controversy that when someone says something you think is wrong that you say so. If I come across as putting into doubt everything or a lot what people say only because I show one aspect of their thinking is wrong, then I am sorry.
I would like to think you are sincere, but something doesn't sound quite right.


But when people use one certain idea or aspect to show that I am completely wrong with everything I say or with wide ranges of what I mean, then I use the disproving of that criticism to support the idea that I am right and they are wrong. Is that so wrong? :smallsmile:
To be frank, it felt to me like you do so in a passive aggressive manner, and tend to attack the competence of the people who disagree with you rather than focusing on their arguments. Remember earlier when I said "You must not be building barbarians right"? That's not really a proper counter argument to your statement "barbarians are inferior to warblades" because it's just a dismissal of the other person and his abilities without explainations as to why - exactly what you did when you said that other guy "must not have been making melee characters right".

Please excuse the paraphrasing.



I wonder what your reaction to my post will be.
More of the same, really.

I could not help but correcting you on several things that you suggested/maintained.
I hope I was able to return the favor.


So far, when I saw that I made a mistake on these boards, I admitted it right away. Or asked for time to think about it. (PhoenixRivers for instance recently got me thinking a lot about what degree of metagaming the rules assume in case of spells, monsters, and items. I still think on it).
I have no idea of your past behavior, or who Pheonix is, so I can't really comment.


DragoonWraith apparently did not even want to start to discuss with me.
From what I've seen, you're a little difficult to talk to.

[balistafreak]

... not only did he fail to answer the question, but his "typical example" is yet again a fail-example.


A typical example is to believe that a wizard with shapechange can blow out of the water a monk in melee combat - but shapechange would be a buff with which the monk also would thrive (obtainable via ring of spell storing or UMDed scroll or custom item), and be again much, much better in melee than a wizard. Etc.
- Giacomo

Wizard casts a spell, Monk emulates with an item. With the Monk's already existing melee capabilities over an unaugmented Wizard (I think we can all agree on that, at least), Giacomo says the Monk > Wizard... which might be true in that limited context.

The problem with this example is that this isn't a fair contest. One of them has burned non-trivial resources, WBL, and one of them hasn't. Class features are renewable - money is not. Don't argue that because an item has repeatable uses it isn't "wasted" - it still has an opportunity cost.

If the Wizard was expected to spend a similiar amount of resources on augmenting his capabilities I have very few doubts that the Wizard would win.

... and I see I've been multi-swordsaged (better than Monk any day :smalltongue:) but I feel this point needs to stand anyways, even if it has been repeated a billion times. Why?

Because it's true.

[Aharon]

Well...
A Monk can't have all the spells the wizard has at the same caster level, for example. It would be prohibitively expensive, even if partially charged items are allowed.

A Wizard 20, Int 28, has 4 0th, 7 1st, 6 2nd to 5th, and 5 6th to 9th level spells per day.

To replicate casting all these spells with the same caster level with partially charged wands, 1 charge each would require 682500 gp.
Doing the same thing with scrolls is cheaper (22750 gp), but the UMD checks are more difficult (DC 40).
And the caster can do it again, the next day.

[AstralFire]

Oh my gosh, not again.

[Fax Celestis]

Well...
A Monk can't have all the spells the wizard has at the same caster level, for example. It would be prohibitively expensive, even if partially charged items are allowed.

A Wizard 20, Int 28, has 4 0th, 7 1st, 6 2nd to 5th, and 5 6th to 9th level spells per day.

To replicate casting all these spells with the same caster level with partially charged wands, 1 charge each would require 682500 gp.
And the caster can do it again, the next day.

BZZZZT

Wands, partial or otherwise, can only hold up to 4th level spells.

[Sir Giacomo]

Then answer me this:

What can a monk do at 17th level that can compare to obtaining four turns of actions (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/timeStop.htm)? Or compare to linking two planes of existence (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/gate.htm)? Summoning a couatl (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/summonMonsterIX.htm)? Turning into the biggest dragon you've ever seen (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/shapechange.htm)?

Items...? :smallsmile: [e.g. candle of invocation, greater ring of spell storing, scrolls...]

The point is: will a monk NEED to do all these things to be equal in power to the wizard? I doubt that.
Conversely, what will the wizard do at 17th level in core to
- not receiving physical age penalities anymore while remaining alive?
- cause death by just willing so, even across whole planes of existence?
- force 5 save-or-lose/suck/die saving throws from 120ft away with just one standard action?
- to make the biggest tree you have ever seen his friend?
:smallsmile:

- Giacomo

PS @9mm: your ToS experience is based on a massively non-core environment which favours casters.
@Greenish: similarly, the lvl 13 vs 20 fights were with non-core rules. The only core combat I am aware of was that of superglucose (wizard) and me (fighter) at 13th level both which tellingly ended in a draw.
Probably what would be helpful is, if there were more duels based only on the core rules (iirc the early core coliseum at WoTC was quite evenly spread in terms of what kind of classes were chosen)

[DragoonWraith]

BZZZZT

Wands, partial or otherwise, can only hold up to 4th level spells.
Forgotten Realms has scepters, which are wands that follow exactly the same pricing guidelines but can go all the way up to 9th level spells.

Of course, that's decidedly non-core.

[Aharon]

@Fax Celestis
Use Scepters and Staves for the higher level spells than. Though that's even more costly.

[hamishspence]

Lost Empires of Faerun has the rules for scepters- they can have up to two spells (a bit like some of the old 2nd ed wands).

However- they max out at 7th level.

[Boci]

PS @9mm: your ToS experience is based on a massively non-core environment which favours casters.

No it doesn't. By your own logic, any spells a caster gets from splatbook, so does melee. But melee also get loads more feat options that casters will typically not have the BAB to qualify for, so plat books favour melee even by your own argument.

[AmberVael]

- cause death by just willing so, even across whole planes of existence?
This is misleading. You must first attack a creature to make Quivering Palm work- you can't just make someone die at random from across the universe, you have to hit them in the face first.
And then they have to fail a saving throw.
And you can only do it once per week.

[Kaiyanwang]

Forgotten Realms has scepters, which are wands that follow exactly the same pricing guidelines but can go all the way up to 9th level spells.

Of course, that's decidedly non-core.

Scepters go upto level 7th.

Ninjaed by an inevitable. :smallfrown:

[Boci]

Oh my gosh, not again.

As Long As There Is Evil...

Disclaimer: I am not saying anyone on this thread is evil, its the thread itself.

[Doc Roc]

Conversely, what will the wizard do at 17th level in core to
- not receiving physical age penalities anymore while remaining alive?
- cause death by just willing so, even across whole planes of existence?
- force 5 save-or-lose/suck/die saving throws from 120ft away with just one standard action?
- to make the biggest tree you have ever seen his friend?
:smallsmile:

- Giacomo

A monk can only do these things poorly. A wizard can do them well.

I'm in for a duel, I think.

Fun note: Evasion doesn't apply to your gear. Your gear can use your save, but not your su and ex abilities. How will I find you? Probably arcane sight or possibly Helping Hand, if I happen to know a little about your physical appearance.

Or maybe I'll just jack my spot skill up using buffs. Tell me, what's the highest hide you've ever pulled at ECL 13?

What ECL do you want to duel at?

[Aharon]

- not receiving physical age penalities anymore while remaining alive?
Become a Lich.
- cause death by just willing so, even across whole planes of existence?
Astral Projection + any save or die
- force 5 save-or-lose/suck/die saving throws from 120ft away with just one standard action?
... how would the monk do that? The wizard can't in core, as far as I know, but Time Stop makes that nearly irrelevant, as he can set up a similarly dangerous situation, with basically one standard action for the time stop.
- to make the biggest tree you have ever seen his friend?
Polymorph any object into human, dominate, wait until polymorph any object wears of.

[Fax Celestis]

Items...? :smallsmile: [e.g. candle of invocation, greater ring of spell storing, scrolls...]Something that wizards also have, and for cheaper if they take crafting feats.


The point is: will a monk NEED to do all these things to be equal in power to the wizard? I doubt that.Let's assume for a minute that that's the case, since someone else will undoubtedly make a better argument than I on that regard. However:

- not receiving physical age penalities anymore while remaining alive?Lich (or baelnorn, if you like being good). Vampirism. Polymorph any object into something that doesn't age. Trap the soul or magic jar work too. Wish.

- cause death by just willing so, even across whole planes of existence?Phantasmal killer, weird, wail of the banshee, finger of death, implosion with judicious applications of plane shift, contingency, astral projection, and/or gate. Wish.

- force 5 save-or-lose/suck/die saving throws from 120ft away with just one standard action?The monk can only do five save or suck, with stunning fist coupled with a ranged monk weapon, and even then that's a full-attack. Quivering Palm is 1/week, so no full attacking there. If you're talking UMD'd shapechange shenanigans, the wizard can do the same thing without spending a dime. Wish.

- to make the biggest tree you have ever seen his friend?Awaken. If you're allowed to UMD, so am I. Turnabout is fair play. Wish.

[Prodan]

- not receiving physical age penalities anymore while remaining alive?
Become a Lich

[Gnaeus]

Items...? :smallsmile: [e.g. candle of invocation, greater ring of spell storing, scrolls...]

Are not class features. Unlikely to have access to them. Unlikely to be able to use them. Completely irrelevant.


The point is: will a monk NEED to do all these things to be equal in power to the wizard? I doubt that.

Then you are wrong again. No surprise.



Conversely, what will the wizard do at 17th level in core to
- not receiving physical age penalities anymore while remaining alive?

Either nothing, because physical age penalties are meaningless when you can rewrite reality or turn into a dragon, or become a lich.


- cause death by just willing so, even across whole planes of existence?

Gate in a solar or a balor and ask them to kill someone. This is WAY more effective than the pathetic monk power to which I assume you are alluding.


- force 5 save-or-lose/suck/die saving throws from 120ft away with just one standard action?

I don't see that on the monks class abilities anywhere, but the wizard can beat it with explosive runes.


- to make the biggest tree you have ever seen his friend?

I assume that this is a reference to Tongue of Sun and Moon, a power that the wizard has had since 5th level

As usual, you are either intentionally misleading, or just wrong to a statistically unbelievable degree.

[AmberVael]

The monk can only do five save or suck, with stunning fist coupled with a ranged monk weapon...

Actually... no.


You may attempt a stunning attack once per day for every four levels you have attained (but see Special), and no more than once per round.

I think there is a Quick Stun feat somewhere which allows you to bypass that, but as written? Only once per round.

[Greenish]

Items...? :smallsmile: [e.g. candle of invocation, greater ring of spell storing, scrolls...]If you have to invoke a Candle of Invocation…


Conversely, what will the wizard do at 17th level in core to
- not receiving physical age penalities anymore while remaining alive?I don't see that coming relevant.

- cause death by just willing so, even across whole planes of existence?After having hit someone in melee? Oh right, scry + teleport + finger of death doesn't have that limitation. And hey, wizards might be able to pull it off more often than once a week.
- force 5 save-or-lose/suck/die saving throws from 120ft away with just one standard action?Mass Hold Monster. Wail of the Banshee. Weird (also 1 round Stun on successful save).

- to make the biggest tree you have ever seen his friend?Charm Monster?

@Greenish: similarly, the lvl 13 vs 20 fights were with non-core rules. The only core combat I am aware of was that of superglucose (wizard) and me (fighter) at 13th level both which tellingly ended in a draw.Hmm, how about core only wizard vs. all splatbooks allowed fighter (http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/19872034/A_Core-only_Wiz_20_vs_Splatbook_Ftr_20...?post_id=3384252 14#338425214)? It's wiz 20, though, and still lasted for 2 whole rounds (after the fighter was allowed to reroll a will save).

[9mm]

A monk can only do these things poorly. A wizard can do them well.

I'm in for a duel, I think.

Fun note: Evasion doesn't apply to your gear. Your gear can use your save, but not your su and ex abilities. How will I find you? Probably arcane sight or possibly Helping Hand, if I happen to know a little about your physical appearance.

Or maybe I'll just jack my spot skill up using buffs. Tell me, what's the highest hide you've ever pulled at ECL 13?

What ECL do you want to duel at?

I'd *gulp* be up for DMing this; though it should be said I handel duels slightly different than a 1 on 1 fight; think more like... Battlebots or Robotica.

[Sir Giacomo]

Prodan, your discussing style somehow is...familiar...
Anyhow.


Hold on. You intepretation does need to add something. To claim it does not is incorrect.

My interpetation does not need to add something.


But that is beside the point of what the rules actually say, isn't it?

It is not.
And since your interpretation leads to the dark side of the (balance-)force, I prefer mine.:smallwink:


Just having countermeasures isn't the hallmark for balance, you know. Having effective countermeasures is.

Yes.


I thought of them too, but they don't really let someone fly as long as, say, a Dragon, do they?

Some of them do (wings of flying). And being able to fly all the time was not the original subject of discussion.
Please. When you have been proven wrong, admit it.


By them, do you refer to the wall?

Yes. I should have said "it". Pardon my mistyping.


What do you do if the wall has been shaped in such a way as you cannot move past it?

You do not need to move past it, you just move through it.


[quote]
Plus, for a flying opponent able to cast a wind wall, it keeps him quite close to the ground since the wind wall needs to be shaped along the ground.[quote]
Range: Medium (100 ft. + 10 ft./level)

Is +100 feet "quite close" now?

Range plays no role here. The wall can only be so high (5ft/lvl) and thus will not help a caster flying 1000 ft in the air (i.e. in full aerial combat).


Less often, if you had better countermeasures.

Simply maintaining that my countermeasures are not good does not help you much, I dare say. I'd appreciate more support by facts.


Shall I take your word for it?

Yup. Meanwhile, have a look at tower shield which provides total cover against burst effects like those of disjunction. But there are more countermeasures, also for a monk whose high will save already helps I daresay.


[quote]The barbarian is completely inferior to the warblade.
Everytime somebody asks here "what do you think about this barbarian build" [quote]
You must be building them wrong.

OK, I may be wrong here. Outside of core all attempts at comparing class power gets blurred - since the barbarian for instance can also get warblade maneuvers via feats and items. Do you have a link to a good warblade/barbarian comparison?


Do you know how much a metamagic rod of Silent Spell costs?

Ah, a rod of silent spell. Yes, that could be helpful for shapechanging into those creatures with blindsight that can use them (let us say those that have vaguely humanoid digits to grasp a rod. Maybe a darkmantle...ask your DM how he/she inteprets metamagic rod use activation. I'd probably not allow it).
Also, do you know how much a wand of silence costs that negates sonic-based blindsight?
Countermeasures to countermeasures to countermeasures. And so on.


That's more a job for something that generates wind and whatnot.

Yes. Countermeasures to countermeasures to countermeasures. And so on.


Giacomo, you must be getting confused. I suggested the Faithful Hound as a way to locate someone who was hiding. You seem to have mistaken my suggestion for a way to locate items.

Really? In any case, the hound is static and only reacts to presence of someone within 30ft, not locating him (see invisibility does not help vs hiding).


It's ok, I won't hold it against you. It's perfectly understandable; composing a reply of Homeric lengths is not the easiest thing in the world.

Somehow I have the feeling that it was not me who caused this misunderstanding. If it really was one.:smallwink:


Au contraire, monamie.
There is every need to destroy his equipment with chain lightening.

Really? Well, it still won't work as long as you do not show a way how.


Nitpick: it's not really blasting away at the monk, just his items.

Nice. Still has to bypass the monk's improved evasion and reflex saves. In case it ever can target the monk's items (and get to know with ultrahigh knowledge dungeoneering that shapechangeing into a darkmantle would help you target the monk's items. Sounds a bit complicated).


Would definately love to see you prove this in a real game. You evidently have the time for it, if the posts of Jordanian lengths are anything to judge by.

Do you think the time to provide, say 3 posts of this length compares to, say, a whole playtest that took 10 months in Test of Spite to show a monk can be a balanced member of a core group?
I'd like to duel against you, but I think Doc Roc has the older rights...


Should you?

Some more willingness to think about it would be a good start.


I would like to think you are sincere, but something doesn't sound quite right.

Then it can't be helped. I tried.


To be frank, it felt to me like you do so in a passive aggressive manner, and tend to attack the competence of the people who disagree with you rather than focusing on their arguments. Remember earlier when I said "You must not be building barbarians right"? That's not really a proper counter argument to your statement "barbarians are inferior to warblades" because it's just a dismissal of the other person and his abilities without explainations as to why - exactly what you did when you said that other guy "must not have been making melee characters right".

Please excuse the paraphrasing.

Paraphrasing is OK.
Still, you see that I answer to your comments point-by-point for two posts now, and you maintain that I just put into question everything you say. That is not the case.


More of the same, really.

Then I have the feeling our discussion is going nowhere.


I hope I was able to return the favor.

You certainly tried. And I liked the rod of silent spell trick (a bit tricky interpretation of use-activation here and the forms involved, but up to the DM I guess).


I have no idea of your past behavior, or who Pheonix is, so I can't really comment.

This surprises me somewhat.:smallwink:


Honestly? Given what that evidently would have entailed judging by what you've done so far, can you really blame him?

Yes I can. But truth to tell, I cannot reply to all, so it is OK.
Guess it's back to work for now.

- Giacomo

[DragoonWraith]

Please. When you have been proven wrong, admit it.
I'm insulted just reading that coming from you.

[Sliver]

Giacomo: I'm wondering... Since you always seem to come up with a countermeasure to anything that the opposition comes up with, (which has to be part of the game, otherwise it's just a natural "I win") how practical you actually think it is?

While spells are a natural part of the wizard's arsenal, and each is different so every one of them will have different tricks, you have no way to predict which one your specific opponent will have, and you must prepare to each of them so that non of his "I win" will go un-answered and create a hole in your defense.

How much coin will you have left beyond attempting to negate every move the wizard makes? How are your actual unique class features (no, wealth and UMD aren't monk's class features.) helping give you an edge? What are you doing about the fact that while you have to spend loads of gold on negating freely accessed features of the wizard, the wizard has the same amount as you, and he doesn't have to negate your monk class features to have any chance at fighting?

I find it interesting that you say that a single use item has an unlimited function because it is more balanced, because while it has many uses as is, it seems to be overpriced to you, and everybody else are wrong because you like your interpretation better, while really having nothing more than a "no, you!" backing you up.

[Sir Giacomo]

A monk can only do these things poorly. A wizard can do them well.

No. A monk can do these things well. A wizard might emulate some of them (some posters above had good ideas). Just like the other way round.
Anyhow, down to business...


I'm in for a duel, I think.

Fun note: Evasion doesn't apply to your gear. Your gear can use your save, but not your su and ex abilities.

True and funny - evasion really does not apply. So I'd better prevent that chain lightning to target my items... (see posts above).


How will I find you? Probably arcane sight or possibly Helping Hand, if I happen to know a little about your physical appearance.

Helping hand? I do not think that helps, because the hand would lead me to you and not the other way round. Maybe if I built an INT 6 monk or fighter..."Wow, a ghostly hand...where will it lead me to?" (follows curiously)
Worse, the hand will point to where you are...:smallbiggrin:


Or maybe I'll just jack my spot skill up using buffs. Tell me, what's the highest hide you've ever pulled at ECL 13?

Hm. Could be
16 ranks
+5 from feats
+6 from DEX
+2 from master work item
+10 from magic item
+4 from size
+1 luck
+2 morale
So...around +46. But I guess it can be pushed higher. (permanent reduced halfling monk, for instance :smallwink: )


What ECL do you want to duel at?

Level 20 first, then we can work our way down.:smallcool:

Level 20 wizard vs lvl 20 fighter, core rules, 28pt buy, wbl as per DMG (including no magic item creation at half price or I'm playing a dwarf who produced millions of gold worth of masterwork items:smallwink:), no LA adjustment races. I'd support the ToS spell bannings, simply it would be a DM's call what they would be able to do (calling spells etc.). Also, no leadership.
I'll start work on my character right away, but it could take until next week.

- Giacomo

[Sliver]

Hm. Could be
16 ranks
+5 from feats
+6 from DEX
+2 from master work item
+10 from magic item
+4 from size
+1 luck
+2 morale
So...around +46. But I guess it can be pushed higher. (permanent reduced halfling monk, for instance :smallwink: )

Mind if I ask how all this focus works with the rest of your build? You clearly reduce your unarmed damage greatly with that size, and you pay a nice sum to boost your hide, and will probably need to do similarly to your move silently... And on top of that you have plenty other things you need to counter, and you still need to pay for being effective in some way...

Or is this monk thing built to counter one argument at a time? A wizard can have many tricks (even if not all at a single time) and you have to be able to counter all of them. (so you won't be caught blind) I dunno...

[AmberVael]

Mind if I ask how all this focus works with the rest of your build?

It doesn't, but he was asked about his max hide at ECL 13- not the hide his character would be expected to have.

[Greenish]

(including no magic item creation at half priceDo I see Sir Giacomo nerfing core casters? That can't be!

[candycorn]

It doesn't, but he was asked about his max hide at ECL 13- not the hide his character would be expected to have.

I agree. They're talking about fighters, and hide isn't even a class skill for a fighter. The most ranks a level 13 fighter could have is 8, I think.

[Sir Giacomo]

Giacomo: I'm wondering... Since you always seem to come up with a countermeasure to anything that the opposition comes up with, (which has to be part of the game, otherwise it's just a natural "I win") how practical you actually think it is?

While spells are a natural part of the wizard's arsenal, and each is different so every one of them will have different tricks, you have no way to predict which one your specific opponent will have, and you must prepare to each of them so that non of his "I win" will go un-answered and create a hole in your defense.

How much coin will you have left beyond attempting to negate every move the wizard makes? How are your actual unique class features (no, wealth and UMD aren't monk's class features.) helping give you an edge? What are you doing about the fact that while you have to spend loads of gold on negating freely accessed features of the wizard, the wizard has the same amount as you, and he doesn't have to negate your monk class features to have any chance at fighting?

I find it interesting that you say that a single use item has an unlimited function because it is more balanced, because while it has many uses as is, it seems to be overpriced to you, and everybody else are wrong because you like your interpretation better, while really having nothing more than a "no, you!" backing you up.

Hi Sliver,

maybe this can illustrate what I mean:
A non-caster can at high levels have items or npc/pc buffs that emulate the following spells or magic:
- mind blank ==> ALL enchantment spells and most divinations are stopped.
- true seeing ==> ALL illusion spells are seen through.
- death ward ==> ALL necromancy attacks are stopped.
- evasion ==> MOST evocation attacking spells are impaired.
- blink ==> ALL targeted and area spells are halved in effect
etc.

These are all examples where one single effect for a limited amount of gold can nullify dozens of spells at once. And most of the time, the opponent spellcaster will only realise this kind of protection by trial and error, that is losing both spell slots and actions to find out.

- Giacomo

PS: for those who wonder about the 120ft 5 saves attack trick...it's a bit of an effort, but...
Monk has fly up (item or buff, 60ft base) and 50ft enhancement bonus from movement, for 110ft move. Monk can also be of large size, or even huge (treant form with polymorph any object) to get 10ft reach.
Charges 110ft to do one attack (a standard action).
This attack triggers-
1) stunning fist
2) quivering palm
3) poison
4) massive damage (50+) due to huge form, INA feat and monk's belt with STR around 30ish ==> 8d8+10+misc damage bonuses like enhancement
5) Gauntlet, spell storing, with hold person.

[Boci]

A non-caster can at high levels have items or npc/pc buffs that emulate the following spells or magic:
- mind blank ==> ALL enchantment spells and most divinations are stopped.
- true seeing ==> ALL illusion spells are seen through.
- death ward ==> ALL necromancy attacks are stopped.
- evasion ==> MOST evocation attacking spells are impaired.
- blink ==> ALL targeted and area spells are halved in effect
etc.

Good thing greater dispel magic doesn't exist.

[candycorn]

Most of those spells seem to not last very long. Blink is really short on duration.

At level 20, it's only 2 minutes, and if it's cast out of a spell storing item, it's only 5 rounds.

Also, wouldn't Magic Missile still work normally against blink?

[AmberVael]

Most of those spells seem to not last very long. Blink is really short on duration.

I would imagine he'd spend money on a Ring of Blinking- still pretty short in terms of duration, but he can do it at will.
That, and a great number of fights would in fact be over before 7 rounds were up.

And presumably Magic Missile would work, though it could be argued they have a 20% miss chance.
Though I'd say by the time an enemy is relying on Magic Missile, the defender with Blink is winning whether it hits them 100% of the time or not. It's just not a potent spell.

[Flickerdart]

I would imagine he'd spend money on a Ring of Blinking- still pretty short in terms of duration, but he can do it at will.
That, and a great number of fights would in fact be over before 7 rounds were up.

And presumably Magic Missile would work, though it could be argued they have a 20% miss chance.
Though I'd say by the time an enemy is relying on Magic Missile, the defender with Blink is winning whether it hits them 100% of the time or not. It's just not a potent spell.
But actions must be spent to get those short-term buffs up, while the Wizard's choice buffs last all day long so he can get to the slaughter immediately.

[AmberVael]

But actions must be spent to get those short-term buffs up, while the Wizard's choice buffs last all day long so he can get to the slaughter immediately.

I'm aware. I wasn't addressing those points.

[candycorn]

I would imagine he'd spend money on a Ring of Blinking- still pretty short in terms of duration, but he can do it at will.
That, and a great number of fights would in fact be over before 7 rounds were up.

And presumably Magic Missile would work, though it could be argued they have a 20% miss chance.
Though I'd say by the time an enemy is relying on Magic Missile, the defender with Blink is winning whether it hits them 100% of the time or not. It's just not a potent spell.

Well, Magic Missile is a force effect, right? And those go to the ethereal plane. Assuming that you can see there, then magic missile can target there.

And if you maximize and empower it, and quicken it with a metamagic rod, it isn't too bad. What is that, 30-40 damage with a quickened spell?

I suppose at higher levels, wouldn't Disjunction or Imprisonment work?

[AmberVael]

Well, Magic Missile is a force effect, right? And those go to the ethereal plane. Assuming that you can see there, then magic missile can target there.
Well, that's the key point- you've got to see them first. I think if they blinked out with that 20% miss chance, and you couldn't see them, then you'd not be able to target them.

It would be totally moot if you had See Invisibility or something, of course.


And if you maximize and empower it, and quicken it with a metamagic rod, it isn't too bad. What is that, 30-40 damage with a quickened spell?
That's still spending a level 6 spell slot and a free quicken from your rod to deal a measly 30-40 damage. That's a lot of resources for such a minor effect. By that point, I'd be hoping for something somewhat more effective.

[Sliver]

Hi Sliver,

maybe this can illustrate what I mean:
A non-caster can at high levels have items or npc/pc buffs that emulate the following spells or magic:
- mind blank ==> ALL enchantment spells and most divinations are stopped.
- true seeing ==> ALL illusion spells are seen through.
- death ward ==> ALL necromancy attacks are stopped.
- evasion ==> MOST evocation attacking spells are impaired.
- blink ==> ALL targeted and area spells are halved in effect
etc.

These are all examples where one single effect for a limited amount of gold can nullify dozens of spells at once. And most of the time, the opponent spellcaster will only realise this kind of protection by trial and error, that is losing both spell slots and actions to find out.

- Giacomo

I won't repeat the point of dispel, which will be used straight away, and your etc is very nice, considering that you pay for each of those a "limited amount of gold" (which means little) while the wizard gets it for free, or little investment. But even if you counter all of the wizards offenses, you invested so much in that, and now you have to invest so much in countering his defenses as well.

I would like to see the list of items you buy for an actual challange like that, including all those skill boosters, the shapeshift/polymorph, the permanent reduce/enlarge (whatever you go with at the time) or whatnot. Then the wizard supporters get on the "here is something that can counter it, and because there exists a counter, everyone will have it, so it's balanced." which is exactly what I'm understanding from you. The possibility of a counter is a balance point. Like Item Familiars.

Please note that I'm not speaking of the possibility of disabling wizard options, but the chance of such a build being viable, even for a single challenge. You describe a lot of things that you must have, but can you keep them all up, without stuff like partially charged wands which you love?

I wonder why you say "No crafting for half price items" and counter it with "I can make infinite stuff with crafting and sell it for unlimited gold" as they are completely different. You won't be using all you are crafting, while the wizard crafter does. And you are strictly getting gold out of it, while a crafter can't get gold out of it (attempting to sell would leave him at xp loss and no gain). One is a thing that you have to invest in and limited by your investment, the other requires no investment (crafting untrained, you can always make a profit.)


PS: for those who wonder about the 120ft 5 saves attack trick...it's a bit of an effort, but...
Monk has fly up (item or buff, 60ft base) and 50ft enhancement bonus from movement, for 110ft move. Monk can also be of large size, or even huge (treant form with polymorph any object) to get 10ft reach.
Charges 110ft to do one attack (a standard action).
This attack triggers-
1) stunning fist
2) quivering palm
3) poison
4) massive damage (50+) due to huge form, INA feat and monk's belt with STR around 30ish ==> 8d8+10+misc damage bonuses like enhancement
5) Gauntlet, spell storing, with hold person.

So, spamming 5 low saves that require you to hit, expand a lot of your abilities and spend more gold while you still have all the counters you need to survive. Totally viable. As it is not, just a theoretical option, it isn't worth mentioning as a feature of the monk. Especially not the poison or massive damage. Nor is your 1/week ability that you know to save up for the wizard is much impressive.

[AstralFire]

Isn't there the Missile Storm series of spells?

Magic Missile is probably a decent target for Arcane Thesis, too, I'd think. Anyway, am babbling. I'll let you guys get back to hitting your head against the great stone wall of Giacomo.

[Fax Celestis]

Isn't there the Missile Storm series of spells?

Magic Missile is probably a decent target for Arcane Thesis, too, I'd think. Anyway, am babbling. I'll let you guys get back to hitting your head against the great stone wall of Giacomo.

Isaac's X missile storm doesn't exist outside of NWN.

However, you can apply Chain Spell to chain missile for a similar effect.

[AstralFire]

Isaac's X missile storm doesn't exist outside of NWN.

However, you can apply Chain Spell to chain missile for a similar effect.

I could have sworn I'd seen it in a book once. :smallredface:

[candycorn]

That's still spending a level 6 spell slot and a free quicken from your rod to deal a measly 30-40 damage. That's a lot of resources for such a minor effect. By that point, I'd be hoping for something somewhat more effective.

Well, maybe... But a high level wizard has lots of resources, right? I mean, See Invisibility and two magic missiles like that would do 75 damage, give or take, and could be cast in a round, from hundreds of feet away.

[hamishspence]

I could have sworn I'd seen it in a book once. :smallredface:

I'm still wondering why Melf's Minute Meteors has not turned up in a 3.0-3.5 book.

Since I remember seeing it in a Drizzt novel (Passage to Dawn).

[Jayabalard]

Personally I find the kind of back and forth bickering in these sort of threads fairly pointless. You're not going to convince either side to come around to your way of thinking.


- not receiving physical age penalities anymore while remaining alive?
Become a Lich.
This seems to be a really bad counter example ... a Lich isn't alive.

- to make the biggest tree you have ever seen his friend?
Polymorph any object into human, dominate, wait until polymorph any object wears of.I don't agree that "dominate them to force them to act in a friendly manner" is equal (or even comparable) to "make them my friend"

[The Glyphstone]

This seems to be a really bad counter example ... a Lich isn't alive.

It has the same end effect really, because the 'still alive' clause doesn't actually matter in any concievable way except to try and prevent liches or other sentient undead from qualifying.



I don't agree that "dominate them to force them to act in a friendly manner" is equal (or even comparable) to "make them my friend"

Technically, the answer to that should be Charm Monster, not Dominate Monster. That actually does make them your friend, at least until the spell wears off.

[Lycar]

I wonder why you say "No crafting for half price items" and counter it with "I can make infinite stuff with crafting and sell it for unlimited gold" as they are completely different. You won't be using all you are crafting, while the wizard crafter does. And you are strictly getting gold out of it, while a crafter can't get gold out of it (attempting to sell would leave him at xp loss and no gain). One is a thing that you have to invest in and limited by your investment, the other requires no investment (crafting untrained, you can always make a profit.)

I think you are missing the point here: A player who claims that he should effectively receive double the amount of WBL he is suggested to have is outright cheating.

Being able to craft items at half market price ONLY means you don't have to have the full gold value available to get that item ingame, which can make it easier for the GM to ensure that the party is approximately up to WBL. It does NOT mean you get to ignore WBL guidelines.

Otherwise this is just as valid as claiming that your 1st level dwarf commoner spent the last 300 years of his life saving up and then go shopping...

Lycar

[Stompy]

How much coin will you have left beyond attempting to negate every move the wizard makes? How are your actual unique class features (no, wealth and UMD aren't monk's class features.) helping give you an edge? What are you doing about the fact that while you have to spend loads of gold on negating freely accessed features of the wizard, the wizard has the same amount as you, and he doesn't have to negate your monk class features to have any chance at fighting?

+1

At 20th level, gold flows like water (or ranting in this thread), but at 10th level or lower, stuff like the wings of flying (54000 gp, above your WBL at 10th) cost an appreciable, if not impossible amount of gold, compared with other stuffs you'll want to buy as well, like stat-boosters, resistance items, magical weapons and armor, skill boosters, etc.

(Potions can try to bridge the gap, but they are one use, and from what I have been told, they are a rip-off. I would have to 95% agree with that.)

Also, the boots of teleportation are 49000 gp. How can you afford this stuff (at levels below 15) while affording the rest of the stuff you need to hit and survive against appropriate encounters?

[Jayabalard]

It has the same end effect really, because the 'still alive' clause doesn't actually matter in any concievable way except to try and prevent liches or other sentient undead from qualifying. Well, there's always that "I still have all my flesh attached to my bones, and none of it is rotting" bit... which would certainly matter to me in several very conceivable (pun intended) ways.

There are far better examples of what a wizard can do that actually meet the "still alive" clause... so the Lich is a terrible example.


Technically, the answer to that should be Charm Monster, not Dominate Monster. That actually does make them your friend, at least until the spell wears off.Hmmm... he just said "biggest tree you have ever seen" so he's just talking about an ordinary tree... it would be immune to mind affecting things. If you use PAO to change the tree into something else to charm it, you're not really "friends" with the tree, so even that sounds a bit sketchy to me.

Edit: also, ordinary trees are objects, not creatures; PAO has a limit of 100 cubic feet/level for objects; the largest trees in our world (Sequoiadendron) are larger than 42,500 cubic feet, so that doesn't seem like a valid tactic.

Even if you count that, I still don't see that as really the same (limited duration, won't work in non-magical areas), but it would certainly be a lot closer than dominate.

[Fax Celestis]

Hmmm... he just said "biggest tree you have ever seen" so he's just talking about an ordinary tree... it would be immune to mind affecting things. If you use PAO to change the tree into something else to charm it, you're not really "friends" with the tree, so even that sounds a bit sketchy to me.

Even if you count that, I still don't see that as really the same (limited duration, won't work in non-magical areas), but it would certainly be a lot closer than dominate.

Again, awaken. It's a druid spell, but if a monk can cross-class UMD, so can a wizard.

[Sliver]

I think you are missing the point here: A player who claims that he should effectively receive double the amount of WBL he is suggested to have is outright cheating.

But the duel suggested is to prove that Core is balanced by showing that Core classes with Core options are balanced. If you need to ban Core options to make the duel worthwhile, how are you proving that it's balanced?

[Optimator]

Personally I find the kind of back and forth bickering in these sort of threads fairly pointless. You're not going to convince either side to come around to your way of thinking.

But he's so wrong though! This could very well be the thread where he realizes the grievous errors in his thinking and methodology. It could!

[Jayabalard]

But he's so wrong though! This could very well be the thread where he realizes the grievous errors in his thinking and methodology. It could!Riiiight. I think I've got some land near here to sell you... it's only a little damp :smallwink:


Again, awaken. It's a druid spell, but if a monk can cross-class UMD, so can a wizard.See, that's a MUCH better example.

Personally I was thinking Speak with Plants (via UMD) and diplomacy.


But the duel suggested is to prove that Core is balanced by showing that Core classes with Core options are balanced. If you need to ban Core options to make the duel worthwhile, how are you proving that it's balanced?I think the argument is that it's not a core option, that WBL is specifically based on the value of the stuff (wealth) that you should have at a given level, not the amount that you pay for it. So if you can create an item for half price that's fine, but it still counts as full price for the purpose of WBL. I really don't have an opinion about it, but that's what I think they're saying.

[DragoonWraith]

Which, of course, completely defeats the purpose of the Crafting feats.

[Jayabalard]

Which, of course, completely defeats the purpose of the Crafting feats.Not at all, the purpose of the crafting feats is to let you make items for half price. WBL on the other hand is a guideline for the amount of stuff you should have at any given level; it doesn't matter how much you pay for that stuff. Just because you got that +x sword of awesome for free doesn't mean that it doesn't count as it's full value price against your WBL.

Really, they don't have anything to do with one another.

[DragoonWraith]

Except the Crafting feats don't get you anything if their value's just going to be deducted from your loot in order to maintain WBL.

[Prodan]

Prodan, your discussing style somehow is...familiar...
Likewise. Do you hang around ENWorld any?



My interpetation does not need to add something.

It needs to add that the Rod of Cancellation can be used against spell effects without drainage, something that is not explicitly stated in the rules.


It is not.
And since your interpretation leads to the dark side of the (balance-)force, I prefer mine.:smallwink:


You have every right to prefer yours. It doesn't make your interpretation the right one if we're going by RAW, however.


Yes.

No. :smallwink:


Some of them do (wings of flying).
Good point.


And being able to fly all the time was not the original subject of discussion.
I find it quite relevant. Flying for 5 minutes a day, or a few hours per week, is not an effective countermeasure if the enemy can just wait a bit and then try again on a defenseless target.


Please. When you have been proven wrong, admit it.

May I ask the same courtesy of you?


You do not need to move past it, you just move through it.
If you have to move through it, does that prevent you from getting a full attack?



Range plays no role here. The wall can only be so high (5ft/lvl) and thus will not help a caster flying 1000 ft in the air (i.e. in full aerial combat).
If a caster's flying 1000 ft in the air, how are you hitting him with projectiles? He wouldn't need a Wind Wall to be immune to a monk.



Simply maintaining that my countermeasures are not good does not help you much, I dare say. I'd appreciate more support by facts.
Careful what you wish for. You might get it.



Yup. Meanwhile, have a look at tower shield which provides total cover against burst effects like those of disjunction.
"Shield, Tower

This massive wooden shield is nearly as tall as you are. In most situations, it provides the indicated shield bonus to your AC. However, you can instead use it as total cover, though you must give up your attacks to do so. The shield does not, however, provide cover against targeted spells; a spellcaster can cast a spell on you by targeting the shield you are holding. You cannot bash with a tower shield, nor can you use your shield hand for anything else. "


If I may ask, But there are more countermeasures, also for a monk whose high will save already helps I daresay.
That wasn't a question...


OK, I may be wrong here. Outside of core all attempts at comparing class power gets blurred - since the barbarian for instance can also get warblade maneuvers via feats and items. Do you have a link to a good warblade/barbarian comparison?
Charging barbarians get more damage than Warblades. I remember hearing about it on ENWorld when they were discussing damage records.


Ah, a rod of silent spell. Yes, that could be helpful for shapechanging into those creatures with blindsight that can use them (let us say those that have vaguely humanoid digits to grasp a rod. Maybe a darkmantle...ask your DM how he/she inteprets metamagic rod use activation. I'd probably not allow it).
Obviously not, it'd hurt your argument.


Also, do you know how much a wand of silence costs that negates sonic-based blindsight?
If you've Silenced yourself, how do you use wands after that point?


Really? In any case, the hound is static and only reacts to presence of someone within 30ft, not locating him (see invisibility does not help vs hiding).
It works well in closed spaces. In open spaces, there'd be no point when you can do things like fly up 1000 feet.


Really? Well, it still won't work as long as you do not show a way how.

Rendered helpless would be a start. Helpless defined as paralyzed, held, bound, sleeping, unconscious, or otherwise afflicted.

Hm. Off the top of my head, I think a little Word of Chaos may help with that.


Nice. Still has to bypass the monk's improved evasion and reflex saves. In case it ever can target the monk's items
The Monk's reflex saves would apply to his items, but I'm not quite sure his evasion would.

(and get to know with ultrahigh knowledge dungeoneering that shapechangeing into a darkmantle would help you target the monk's items. Sounds a bit complicated).
Good thing the Wizard class gets Knowledge Dungeoneering.


Do you think the time to provide, say 3 posts of this length compares to, say, a whole playtest that took 10 months in Test of Spite to show a monk can be a balanced member of a core group?
You seem to be on fairly regularly, since I've been visiting (starting last year December ish?) and have the ability to post a ton, so... yes. I'm going to go with affirmative.


I'd like to duel against you, but I think Doc Roc has the older rights...
I don't duel as a rule. Most of the time they deteriorate into rules layering and never get anywhere as a result.


Still, you see that I answer to your comments point-by-point for two posts now, and you maintain that I just put into question everything you say. That is not the case.
I never said you put into question everything I said. Just what I noticed from your conversations with other people.

[Sir Giacomo]

But the duel suggested is to prove that Core is balanced by showing that Core classes with Core options are balanced. If you need to ban Core options to make the duel worthwhile, how are you proving that it's balanced?

Oh, we could play with called creatures and leadership and simulacrums (all of which could also be had by non-casters). But I am afraid that people would not like the course and outcome of the duel, at least not from the perspective whether it illustrated any particular strengths of the class when the characters are somewhere by themselves.
20th level characters easily can muster hundreds of minions. But that is not the point.

A wizard's familiar and items like figurines of wondrous power are OK, as are monsters you summon.
But the rest is simply too DM-dependent.

Ah, Doc Roc, and I guess we should include leaving the combat arena (say, teleporting home, but not using etheralness) as losing. Or a draw. Whatever you like.
And since I'd suggest the duel takes place on the prime material, I'd suggest there is no astral projection, either.

Will go to bed now.

- Giacomo

[Prodan]

Personally I find the kind of back and forth bickering in these sort of threads fairly pointless. You're not going to convince either side to come around to your way of thinking.


I am not convinced. :smallwink:



This seems to be a really bad counter example ... a Lich isn't alive.
It's certainly not dead. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0292.html)

[Rothen]

I cast Celerity.

In my book, being able to emulate other classes is no merit to a class.
I don't really care about the whole ''Monks are terrible'' point of view, but if you're not willing to accept that Wizards are unbalanced compared to non-casters, then you clearly need to play some more PVP between these classes.

[Jayabalard]

Except the Crafting feats don't get you anything if their value's just going to be deducted from your loot in order to maintain WBL.How is that different than "Doing a service to the king to get special items doesn't get you anything if their value is just going to be deducted from your loot to maintain WBL." in any way?

The creation feats do something even if they don't increase the items you have available: they let you make precisely what you want, which may often not be readily available, especially for the more esoteric items.

Really, the purpose of WBL is to make sure you have enough, but not too much stuff so that encounters are challenging but not overwhelming. I'm not clear on why you think that should necessary change just because you have item creation feats. You still need roughly the same amount of magic items, regardless of how you get them, so it seems fairly logical that the guideline should suggest precisely the same amount of items in either case.

[Fax Celestis]

{Scrubbed}

[AmberVael]

How is that different than "Doing a service to the king to get special items doesn't get you anything if their value is just going to be deducted from your loot to maintain WBL." in any way?
Because you don't pay experience to do a service to the king.

...most of the time, but lets not go down the exception route.

[Greenish]

You still need roughly the same amount of magic items, regardless of how you get them, so it seems fairly logical that the guideline should suggest precisely the same amount of items in either case.You'd need more items to compensate for the feats you used.

[DragoonWraith]

How is that different than "Doing a service to the king to get special items doesn't get you anything if their value is just going to be deducted from your loot to maintain WBL." in any way?
Doing that service doesn't take a feat slot. A Feat should gain you something, and the DMG specifically states that if a character is looking for a particular item and it is within their WBL, the DM should accommodate them on it either by having it in the shops, or show up in the loot. So yes, item crafting should get you more effective WBL, because you blew some of your personal power to get it. If the crafting rules are balanced (not saying they are), then the increase in effective WBL should be equivalent in power to any other feat. That's not really the case, but that's largely irrelevant to my position.

[Prodan]

{Scrubbed}

What happens if someone gets bull rushed out of the arena?

[Greenish]

What happens if someone gets bull rushed out of the arena?Giacomo declares victory, if it was him bull rushing.

Giacomo complains about going against the spirit of the challenge, if it was him being bull rushed.

[Sir Giacomo]

{Scrubbed}

Let us say if Doc Roc accepts this as a good base for comparing class balance, I'm fine - since I am not dueling you to prove a point.

If he does not, then of course the duel makes no sense at all.

I often get to see that people have no problem at all for their wizards to have tons of animated skeletons and called outsiders running around for them to illustrate how powerful they are but cry foul the moment a non-caster uses leadership feat, diplomacy skill or magic items to reach similar results.

If you do not see the inconsistency in this, I do not think we have a common base for discussing.

- Giacomo

PS: btw Jayabalard is completely correct. Check out DMG p. 135 for more details.

[Fax Celestis]

What happens if someone gets bull rushed out of the arena?

Probably something like this. (http://buttersafe.com/2010/04/29/a-guy-walks-into-a-bar/)


If you do not see the inconsistency in this, I do not think we have a common base for discussing.

The only inconsistency I see is denying one person access to perfectly legitimate class features while not denying the other person anything.

[DragoonWraith]

I strongly disagree with the "leaving the arena is a draw or forfeit" rule. One of the many things that Wizards have over Monks is Teleport, and houseruling it away eliminates a lot of what people are talking about here.

If Doc Roc decides to Teleport away, Giacomo should come and get him. Or prepare for a Scry'n'Die. Good luck on that.

[Prodan]

I often get to see that people have no problem at all for their wizards to have tons of animated skeletons and called outsiders running around for them to illustrate how powerful they are but cry foul the moment a non-caster uses leadership feat, diplomacy skill or magic items to reach similar results.

If you do not see the inconsistency in this, I do not think we have a common base for discussing.

I don't know of many people who hold both positions. Can you name any examples for my edification?





The only inconsistency I see is denying one person access to perfectly legitimate class features while not denying the other person anything.

To be fair, it denies the monk... Dimension Step.

[Greenish]

I don't know of many people who hold both positions. Can you name any examples for my edification?Animated Skeletons are rather minor, but I'll cry foul if someone tries to use Diplomacy rules as written.

[Sir Giacomo]

I strongly disagree with the "leaving the arena is a draw or forfeit" rule. One of the many things that Wizards have over Monks is Teleport, and houseruling it away eliminates a lot of what people are talking about here.

If Doc Roc decides to Teleport away, Giacomo should come and get him. Or prepare for a Scry'n'Die. Good luck on that.

Then the monk with ring of sustenance moves away etherally and hides with +zillion hide skill bonus, constantly on the move. Good luck trying to find him (remember scrying just gives you the ability to see somewhere, but you the sight is still mundane).
But it's a fighter vs wizard combat we talk about. The fighter has less options for escaping a wizard bent on finding him, true. Magic items can help him somewhat here.

- Giacomo

[Boci]

Animated Skeletons are rather minor, but I'll cry foul if someone tries to use Diplomacy rules as written.

Or leadership for that matter, unless both sides had it.

[Jayabalard]

What happens if someone gets bull rushed out of the arena?As long as they aren't retreating, I don't see how it would qualify.


{poorly worded text}It's not really all that arbitrary... some validity to the argument tat it doesn't really make sense to allow stuff like minions, since they going to be readily available to everyone and don't really say much about the classes themselves.

Then again, there are lots of game mechanics that meet this criteria, and I'd imagine that some people would pitch a fit if you tried to exclude specific ones.

[DragoonWraith]

Then the monk with ring of sustenance moves away etherally and hides with +zillion hide skill bonus, constantly on the move. Good luck trying to find him (remember scrying just gives you the ability to see somewhere, but you the sight is still mundane).
But it's a fighter vs wizard combat we talk about. The fighter has less options for escaping a wizard bent on finding him, true. Magic items can help him somewhat here.

- Giacomo
If successful, then you two might agree to a draw if you both admit that neither of you has any way of finding the other. But not automatically.

Of course, the Wizard can just go on with his life, while you're spending the rest of yours hiding.

[Stompy]

Not at all, the purpose of the crafting feats is to let you make items for half price. WBL on the other hand is a guideline for the amount of stuff you should have at any given level; it doesn't matter how much you pay for that stuff. Just because you got that +x sword of awesome for free doesn't mean that it doesn't count as it's full value price against your WBL.

Really, they don't have anything to do with one another.

Just one question, how are you going to pay for the XP needed for these crafted items you make yourself? (How much theoretical XP would our theory characters have?)

[9mm]

Level 20 first, then we can work our way down.:smallcool:

Level 20 wizard vs lvl 20 fighter, core rules, 28pt buy, wbl as per DMG (including no magic item creation at half price or I'm playing a dwarf who produced millions of gold worth of masterwork items:smallwink:), no LA adjustment races. I'd support the ToS spell bannings, simply it would be a DM's call what they would be able to do (calling spells etc.). Also, no leadership.
I'll start work on my character right away, but it could take until next week.


once again, I'll put foward my willingness to be the DM, however, I do duels differently than the standard "2 enter a arena 1 leaves," namely there will be obsticals and/or a alternate win condition involved.

[Sir Giacomo]

The only inconsistency I see is denying one person access to perfectly legitimate class features while not denying the other person anything.

Diplomacy is a class skill of the monk.
Leadership is a feat that can be taken by the fighter more easily than by other classes since he has more feats to spare.
Giving the effect of, say, "gate" to one character and not to the other is what I call inconsistent. The class ability of a wizard is that he can possibly get it easier (not the XP cost though and the danger involved with casting gate), but for big showdown fights all characters of high level could have it. Gate is actually a good example for a spell that you usually do not spam every day.

- Giacomo

PS: 9mm, thanks for the offer to DM. Fine by me. Let us wait for Doc Roc's answer.

[Fax Celestis]

Diplomacy is a class skill of the monk.
Leadership is a feat that can be taken by the fighter more easily than by other classes since he has more feats to spare.
Giving the effect of, say, "gate" to one character and not to the other is what I call inconsistent. The class ability of a wizard is that he can possibly get it easier (not the XP cost though and the danger involved with casting gate), but for big showdown fights all characters of high level could have it. Gate is actually a good example for a spell that you usually do not spam every day.

Again, if you are to truly test the power of two classes, it would behoove you to play "by the book", as it were, rather than implementing a bunch of fiddly changes.

[Stompy]

Diplomacy is a class skill of the monk.

True, but I have never seen a monk put ranks in diplomacy, nor have I seen a monk with a CHA above 10.

[Sir Giacomo]

Again, if you are to truly test the power of two classes, it would behoove you to play "by the book", as it were, rather than implementing a bunch of fiddly changes.

Then a level 20 fighter ruling as a king with leadership and even cross-class diplomacy would have access to every spell in the game and be nigh unassailable. As would be a wizard with minions around him. And as it would likely be in many campaigns involving such high-level characters.

My point proven. Again.

- Giacomo

[Prodan]

True, but I have never seen a monk put ranks in diplomacy, nor have I seen a monk with a CHA above 10.

This got me thinking:

So, ranks in UMD (cross class), Diplomacy, Hide, Move Silently, Spot, Listen, Tumble...

Human with an Int of 16, or other race with an Int of 18.

[Fax Celestis]

My point proven. Again.

Aha.

Ahahaha.

You have proven nothing beyond that Leadership And Diplomacy Don't Work Right. We knew this already.

Don't get me wrong, I think disallowing leadership and diplomacy are good for reasons of sanity, but you are attempting to prove monks/fighters are as capable as full spellcasters. Including addendums will prove (one way or the other) a result only under those conditions. Work with the baseline so that any results are as globally applicable--and therefore as globally useful--as possible.

[Stompy]

This got me thinking:

So, ranks in UMD (cross class), Diplomacy, Hide, Move Silently, Spot, Listen, Tumble...

Simple, you get MW items to help. :smallbiggrin: (I don't care if it is RAW, MW non-magical UMD tools are silly.)


Then a level 20 wizard ruling as a king with leadership and even cross-class diplomacy would have access to every spell in the game and be nigh unassailable.

Prove is a strong word. My edit to the quote also works, and is also valid. I mean, leadership isn't banned for wizards, nor is cross-classing diplomacy.

Both sides have to put the same limits on what is allowed or what isn't allowed. Otherwise, there will be no reasonable comparison to be made, as both sides will claim that they are childhood friends of Pun-Pun (or something as wacky).

[Sliver]

Giacomo, if you are going to randomly ban things you don't like from the wizard's options while using rule interpretations only you believe in and argue against accepted rules because they are in favor of the opposition, I can't see any point in the duel you are going to enter. You can't say Core is balanced if you don't allow all of it, and so far most suggested rules limit only the caster. What point do you think it will prove if there is a dual under some random wizard ban list, as opposed to an everything goes dual?

[Greenish]

Aha.

Ahahaha.Typing laughing like that reminds me uncomfortably of Hawley Griffin (from League of Extraordinary Gentlemen), and I keep glancing nervously over my shoulder, even though there isn't anything to see there. (Because he's invisible!)

:smalleek:

[Boci]

Aha.

Ahahaha.

You have proven nothing beyond that Leadership And Diplomacy Don't Work Right. We knew this already.

No he's "proven" that wizard should not be able to use their minion summoning / creating spells because diplocamy and leadership are broken.

@Giacomo - I have no problem with a melee class using gate/summon planar ally if the wizard can use it to. As long as they pay the price of the magical item and accept the lower caster level. Don't forget to multiple consumables by 5. And yes, a scroll is a consumable, even though it is not used up when you use it as an improvised weapon to deal 1 point of subdual damage with a -4 attack penalty.

[Sir Giacomo]

Aha.

Ahahaha.

You have proven nothing beyond that Leadership And Diplomacy Don't Work Right. We knew this already.

Er...why do they not "work right" whereas called creatures from beyond (sometimes allegedly causing infinite wish chains) are OK?


Don't get me wrong, I think disallowing leadership and diplomacy are good for reasons of sanity, but you are attempting to prove monks/fighters are as capable as full spellcasters. Including addendums will prove (one way or the other) a result only under those conditions. Work with the baseline so that any results are as globally applicable--and therefore as globally useful--as possible.

So you would ban leadership and diplomacy, but none of the spells a wizard can cast?

Or better: what kind of rulesset would you recommend for a core level 20 duel?

- Giacomo

[Greenish]

both sides will claim that they are childhood friends of Pun-Pun (or something as wacky).But monks have a class ability that makes it easier for them to be pals with budding kobold paladins!

[Boci]

Er...why do they not "work right" whereas called creatures from beyond (sometimes allegedly causing infinite wish chains) are OK?

Because leadership is clearly the most powerful available and is not even located in the PH, and and relativly easy to meet check with no opposed roll to gain an ally is clearly broken?

[Sir Giacomo]

Giacomo, if you are going to randomly ban things you don't like from the wizard's options while using rule interpretations only you believe in and argue against accepted rules because they are in favor of the opposition, I can't see any point in the duel you are going to enter. You can't say Core is balanced if you don't allow all of it, and so far most suggested rules limit only the caster. What point do you think it will prove if there is a dual under some random wizard ban list, as opposed to an everything goes dual?

OK, same question as for Fax Celestis: what kind of rulesset would you recommend for a core duel then?

- Giacomo

[Prodan]

I hear good things about Mr. Burlew's diplomacy fix.