PDA

View Full Version : Pathfinder any good?



Valergain
2011-12-09, 06:34 PM
I used to run a 3.5 edtion game two years back. Long stroy short they kicked my out and I lost acess to my 3.5 stuff. So now I formed a new group and run 4 edtion game. It's really not my style the magic is oversimplfied and the skill system does not work for me. So I heard that pathfiner is basically 3.75 edition. Is that true? Does it adress my problems?

The Boz
2011-12-09, 06:39 PM
It addresses some problems. I don't know what your problems are, except for the ones you mention about 4e.
It fixes skills. Buffs everyone. Fixes some spells.
Many glaring problems still remain.

Valergain
2011-12-09, 06:43 PM
my porbelms are mainly as outlined.
3.5 edtion = good but a bit all over the place
4 edtion = to simple
I'm asking if it is an in between.

The Boz
2011-12-09, 06:48 PM
Erm... "bit all over the place"?
Could you be a bit more specific? Telling your mechanic that the car "feels wonky" won't get it fixed any time soon.

Skelengar
2011-12-09, 06:49 PM
What do you mean by all over the place?

Valergain
2011-12-09, 06:56 PM
What do you mean by all over the place?
The skill system was a bit overcomplicated in my opion.

Jeraa
2011-12-09, 07:11 PM
Pathfinder isn't 3.75. (That implies its halfway between 3.5 and 4e.) Pathfinder is 3.5, with some changes. Its far closer to 3.5 then it is 4e. If you enjoyed 3.5, you probably enjoy Pathfinder. But most of 3.5s problems still exist in Pathfinder.

But you can judge for yourself. It has an SRD, of course. Pathfinder SRD (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/)

(And asking if Pathfinder is any good is a pointless question. You'll get both yes and no answers, along with maybe. The only one who can decide if it is good is you. Personally, if I had to choose between 4e and Pathfinder, I'd chose Pathfinder. But I'd also choose 3.5 over Pathfinder.)

navar100
2011-12-09, 07:25 PM
If a person hates 3E, Pathfinder will not make it better for him. For example, people who are enraged about 3E magic and want to ban-hammer Tier 1 classes to oblivion will not be satiated. There's no pleasing them without getting rid of magic altogether so don't even try.

Otherwise, the changes to 3E Pathfinder did make will matter according to your tastes. Since you mentioned concern about 3E skills, Pathfinder tweaked them. Many skills are consolidated into one: Listen, Search, and Spot are now Perception. Hide and Move Silently are now Stealth. Jump, Tumbling, and Balance are now Athletics. There are class skills but no such thing as cross-class skills. You buy ranks on a one-for-one basis. You get a +3 bonus if it's a class skill. Therefore, a 10th level Fighter can have +10 to Perception if he wants, not counting wisdom modifier. The 10th level Rogue would have +13.

As an interesting quirk, the Fighter might take Skill Focus (Perception). They improved the feat such that in addition to a +3 bonus, if you have 10 ranks in the skill the bonus improves to +6. Therefore, a 10th level Fighter can have +16 + Wisdom modifier to Perception vs a 10th level Rogue without Skill Focus (Stealth) having +13 + Dexterity modifier to Stealth. A 10th level Fighter has a decent chance of spotting the hidden Rogue!

All classes except for druid got an increase in power. Warrior classes and Rogue got a lot of love with Paladin probably winning the trophy. Fighters don't suck for wearing Heavy Armor! Clerics got more useful Domain abilities and instead of Turn Undead can Channel Energy allowing for healing at a range. Wizards get a couple of school specialization abilities. Sorcerers get bloodlines providing extra spells known and class features such that you don't want to prestige class. Druids got nerfed because wildshape/polymorph got nerfed. It's now based upon various spells of different levels that provide fixed ability score enhancements and creature abilities. Druids can no longer dump Strength and Dexterity if they want to fight a lot in wild shape.

Some spells were changed. Save or die spells are now 10 damage/level, with the exception of Phantasmal Killer which remains the same. Some spells like Ray of Enfeeblement and Glitterdust were given saving throws. Spells that provided immunity to something now give a +number bonus to your saving throw.

Feats were changed, and this is where a lot of controversy exists. Even some people who like Pathfinder find fault with the feat changes. If there's something about Pathfinder you're not going to like, chances are it's in the feats. If you like them, great. If not, no harm done using the original 3E version.

Paizo offers a free version to download. Check it out.

Yora
2011-12-10, 06:51 AM
I think Pathfinder runs a bit smoother than 3.5e.

It's 3.5e with some fine tuning, but not a complete rebuild.

What I like the most is that with the Core Rulebook and the Advanced Players Guide, you have as many good stuff to work with as with the PHB and the entire Complete series. The PF classes all have more options, so that just playing single- or dual-class doesn't feel as bland as in 3.5e. A fighter/rogue does get all kinds of neat tricks and options for customization beyond bonus feats.

If you want to tell your players "Here's one book and that's all you'll ever need", I'd go for pathfinder. Otherwise one is as good as the other.

Dsurion
2011-12-10, 07:59 AM
There's a topic going on about 3.5 and Pathfinder here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=224862) if you want to take a look.

As I said in that thread, there's a general guide (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=136890) of the things that changed between 3.5 and Pathfinder, but it is overall very similar, not nearly so different as 3.5 to 4th.

turkishproverb
2011-12-10, 09:05 AM
I used to run a 3.5 edtion game two years back. Long stroy short they kicked my out and I lost acess to my 3.5 stuff. So now I formed a new group and run 4 edtion game. It's really not my style the magic is oversimplfied and the skill system does not work for me. So I heard that pathfiner is basically 3.75 edition. Is that true? Does it adress my problems?

It keeps 3.5's magic and skill systems, though wizards are even mroe brokenly overpowered *cough*freemetamagic*cough* and one of the main developers is a frequent caster-player, and as such frequently nerfs the other classes in new and exciting ways *cough*nomonkimprovednaturalattack*cough*

Bovine Colonel
2011-12-10, 09:08 AM
If a person hates 3E, Pathfinder will not make it better for him. For example, people who are enraged about 3E magic and want to ban-hammer Tier 1 classes to oblivion will not be satiated. There's no pleasing them without getting rid of magic altogether so don't even try.

No one fits that description. At all.

Knaight
2011-12-10, 09:40 AM
Pathfinder is called 3.75, but is probably closer to 3.5001. If you liked 3.5, you'll like Pathfinder, if you didn't, you won't. Either way, odds are there is a game you would like better if you have only tried 2 so far, so trying out a variety would be a good idea.

sonofzeal
2011-12-10, 09:44 AM
I'd get PF if....

a) I'd never played much 3.5 or learned the system in any depth.

b) I don't have access to and don't intend to gain access to many 3.5 books.

and/or

c) The people I routinely game with uses Pathfinder exclusively.



That last one's the kicker, and the only reason I personally would ever switch given that I know 3.5 in detail and have access to many 3.5 resources. Despite my fairly vocal nay-sayer position in the linked thread, I don't think PF is bad in any way.

But if you've already invested money in 3.5 books, and/or your personal time and energy in familiarizing yourself with the rules, I don't think it's worth the effort to switch. PF changed a tone of tiny things, things you wouldn't even expect. I had no idea until a couple days ago that PF applies armor check penalty on Ride and Disable Device, and I would have never thought of looking that up. I can build simple 3.5 characters with minimal reference to books, but were I to play a PF game I'd have to double check every little thing and read it carefully for exceptions or interactions that may not have been present in 3.5. That's a heavy disincentive for me.

Nevermind that PF's alterations to races/classes make it less backwards compatible. Core PF races are now categorically better than other 3.5 races, meaning playing them in a PF game is going to be a little frustrating unless you go to the additional effort of houseruling them. Same with many classes. Wu Jen comes to mind - they compare decently with Wizards in 3.5, but PF Wizards blow them straight out of the water, and their unusual spell list creates awkward interactions too. I could play them as-written in a PF game for the most part, but it would be more difficult and frustrating and likely require additional houseruling even in the best case. Since I enjoy and use a lot of non-Core resources, and dislike having to houserule things, this creates another significant disincentive for me to pick up PF.

Finally, my group uses 3.5, is happy with 3.5, and sees no reason to use anything else. Were I to switch to PF I'd have to convert and re-teach them too, since only one or two are likely to read through the PF thoroughly themselves. Again, that's a significant barrier for me.

But if none of those cases applies to you... sure, I guess PF might offer a marginal improvement. It's still the same basic product, but did do some things right. Nothing huge, which is why I don't switch in spite of the obstacles, but if there's no reason not to switch then it's probably a good idea.

Tyndmyr
2011-12-10, 10:40 AM
Pathfinder is basically 3.5 with some house rules. Some are good, others not so great...meh. Either way, if you can't find 3.5 books around, PF is going to get you some very similar gameplay.

Also, mashing PF and 3.5 together isn't terribly hard due to the similarity, and PF does have a rather extensive SRD you can check out prior to deciding.

the_other_gm
2011-12-10, 01:39 PM
do you like 3.5? if you do, you'll find yourself in a very familiar place as PF is 3.5 with a fresh coat of paint.

it doesn't fix many, if any, of the issues i've had with the system, primarily that casters have too many options available and non-casters still get the shaft in that department.

also, while they did consolidate some of the skills, you're still looking at 35-ish skills and most classes still only get 2-4 skill points... i've generally found that characters are still pretty much as unskilled in PF that they were in 3.5 and most skills don't get much use at higher levels where magic tends to step in to solve all problems.

Blisstake
2011-12-10, 03:22 PM
It keeps 3.5's magic and skill systems, though wizards are even mroe brokenly overpowered *cough*freemetamagic*cough* and one of the main developers is a frequent caster-player, and as such frequently nerfs the other classes in new and exciting ways *cough*nomonkimprovednaturalattack*cough*

Uh, correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought 3.5 had a lot more free metamagic available to players. Like... you know, Incantatrix and Divine Metamagic, and Arcane Thesis, and Metamagic Song, and stuff like that. :smallconfused: Unless you're talking about that one trait (Magical Lineage), which I agree is utter bull****, but thankfully not as bad as Arcane Thesis was. You're right in that wizards weren't really changed all too much, but saying they're better is, well, an incredible stretch.

And monks got a lot of love that makes up for the Improved Natural Attack thing. I mean, damage dice weren't really their problem. They're still not great, but... I'd prefer to play a Core PF monk than a Core 3.5 one.

However, OP doesn't seem to care about balance too much, in which case I'd say play PF, sure, why not. It's somewhat more simplified than 3.5 (combat maneuvers streamlined, skills a bit more concise), but keeps the radically different spellcasting system than what 4e had. It adds a few more options to certain character classes (Sorcerers, monks, rogues, barbarians come to mind), and you get more feats, but it's really the same game at the basic level.

Also: pretty much everything except adventure paths get uploaded to the Pathfinder SRD, so if access to splatbooks is what you want, Pathfinder has nearly all of that available for free online.

Zeta Kai
2011-12-10, 03:35 PM
No one fits that description. At all.

That's a loaded statement, & judging by the threads on these forums, it's patently false.

Bovine Colonel
2011-12-10, 05:54 PM
That's a loaded statement, & judging by the threads on these forums, it's patently false.

I suppose. Navar's statement did seem kind of insulting though.

FMArthur
2011-12-10, 06:23 PM
In lots of ways, things are improved. Mundane classes got so many new toys that they have a greater variety of things to do. Casters did too, but they weren't lacking options as badly in 3.5 so the impact feels lesser. ACFs are more plentiful than ever. The skill system works the same way in play, but redundancies were chopped down, related skills grouped together and things are simpler on the character-construction end because the difference between in-class and cross-class skills is simply a +3 bonus now.

However... If you're just playing with PF materials with no 3.5, melee in general got its mobility bumped down pretty much to WotC's Complete-Warrior-era melee design, so it can be painful in that way. When WotC realized how badly they were screwing melee and did all sorts of awesome stuff to fix it late in 3.5, I assure you that Paizo designers were the sort of players that shouted "overpowered" at it. As a really simplified metric... if your 3.5 games included the Tome of Battle, going exclusively Pathfinder will feel like a big **** you to melee.

My preferred game type is Pathfinder with 3.5 material allowed.

Viktyr Gehrig
2011-12-10, 07:02 PM
If your main complaint about 3.5 is the skill system, Pathfinder did improve it considerably. They consolidated a number of skills, simplified skill ranks, and just generally streamlined it.

Everyone got better except the Druid and, for some inexplicable reason, the Bard. In most cases, you're better off riding a class to 20 than level-dipping or going into a Prestige Class.

On the other hand, Pathfinder is still essentially 3.5 and still has the majority of its flaws. The multiclassing system still doesn't work, full spellcasters are still overwhelmingly powerful, and high-level character and encounter design is still far too complicated.

Tyndmyr
2011-12-10, 07:30 PM
In lots of ways, things are improved. Mundane classes got so many new toys that they have a greater variety of things to do. Casters did too, but they weren't lacking options as badly in 3.5 so the impact feels lesser. ACFs are more plentiful than ever. The skill system works the same way in play, but redundancies were chopped down, related skills grouped together and things are simpler on the character-construction end because the difference between in-class and cross-class skills is simply a +3 bonus now.

Much of this is variable depending on how much 3.x material you have access to. I did a brief tally recently on the number of ACFs available to every class in both systems, and while both have a goodly number, 3.x wins by a very large margin.

The skill system is generally improved, though. I like that.


However... If you're just playing with PF materials with no 3.5, melee in general got its mobility bumped down pretty much to WotC's Complete-Warrior-era melee design, so it can be painful in that way. When WotC realized how badly they were screwing melee and did all sorts of awesome stuff to fix it late in 3.5, I assure you that Paizo designers were the sort of players that shouted "overpowered" at it. As a really simplified metric... if your 3.5 games included the Tome of Battle, going exclusively Pathfinder will feel like a big **** you to melee.

My preferred game type is Pathfinder with 3.5 material allowed.

That is also, unfortunately, quite accurate.

It is generally fairly easy to port PF and 3.5 material into the other game though with minimal changes, or sometimes, none at all. I feel pretty confident that if the OP dislikes 4e, but fondly remembers 3.5, PF will get him pretty close to what he's looking for.

Heatwizard
2011-12-10, 07:52 PM
The way I always talked about PF is that it's more like "3.5, Part 2". It kind of seems to me like it's mainly an excuse to keep publishing 3.5 material after Wizards decided to quit for 4e.

If you're looking for an actual 'halfway point', I would suggest looking into Legend, actually. While I was reading though it, I very much got the impression that they took 4e's mission of being more accessible and balanced, and 3.5's philosophy of being modular in a meaningful fashion and making classes feel distinct, and threw 'em both into a pot and stirred. You pick one class to ride out for the whole game, but it comes in four parts; the chassis has BAB/HP/size quality, and then three 'tracks' of abilities that slowly trickle in. The idea is you can trade out tracks, like if you took a Paladin but threw out your Smite Evil for Barbarian Rage, and your mount for Beguiler spellcasting. It's interesting.

GoatToucher
2011-12-15, 03:20 PM
Pathfinder fixes some things pretty well, but it does leave some problems unsolved.

It's mostly a matter of taste. This is not a dis, but 3.5 has a lot more material than Pathfinder. I consider this a flaw, as a lot of supplementary books added to caster power, which was the last thing that anybody needed. That said, if you like optimization, 3.5 is for you, as there are a lot more resources to draw from to build the character you want.

Pathfinder was a campaign setting before is was a game system, and it shows. I am a fan of the fluff, but the relatively fresh start that being a new system provides clears a lot of the clutter that the scads of 3.5 books created. The supplements tend to introduce new, fully realized classes more than PrC's. Archetypes have been introduced to make tweaks to the flavor of the classes crunch, as well as the fluff.

You really have to see for your self. Check out the wiki and the SRD and see what you can see.

JaronK
2011-12-15, 03:27 PM
I find that Pathfinder just feels like I'm playing someone else's house rules. Some of them are good, some of them are bad, but the overall game hasn't changed... I just have to learn some new changes.

The real advantage is new adventures to use. That's about it.

JaronK

Nero24200
2011-12-15, 05:29 PM
I find that Pathfinder just feels like I'm playing someone else's house rules.

This, IMO, is the best way to describe it. If you're creative enough to make your own house rules I personally would just use them. If you don't have the time or energy to do so however then there isn't any harm in giving PF a try.

Psyren
2011-12-15, 05:52 PM
b) I don't have access to and don't intend to gain access to many 3.5 books.

:smallconfused:

How does that follow?

Not only can every one of those books work with Pathfinder just fine, I'm willing to bet that most of us who enjoy Pathfinder either own or have read a majority of the 3.5 material.


This, IMO, is the best way to describe it. If you're creative enough to make your own house rules I personally would just use them. If you don't have the time or energy to do so however then there isn't any harm in giving PF a try.

There's also the fact that PF's "houserules" are widely known by a huge community of gamers.

If I want a group to use "Psyren's houserules" I'll need to type up a nice document, mail it out to everyone, keep copies at the gametable, and deal with a lot of miscommunications etc. until the group internalizes them.

Whereas if I tell a group "we're playing Pathfinder" many will instantly know what I'm talking about, and those that don't can immediately begin reading up on it, (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/) or asking questions on message boards about it from people who know. With no extra effort on my part.

Sylvre Phire
2011-12-15, 08:29 PM
I used to run a 3.5 edtion game two years back. Long stroy short they kicked my out and I lost acess to my 3.5 stuff. So now I formed a new group and run 4 edtion game. It's really not my style the magic is oversimplfied and the skill system does not work for me. So I heard that pathfiner is basically 3.75 edition. Is that true? Does it adress my problems?

If you want to take a look at the rules without buying the book, the SRD for is here (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd). It's the only way I can think of telling you what the system is like while avoiding the flames of another Edition War...

Pax et bonum,

Dale

Tyndmyr
2011-12-16, 10:09 AM
I used to run a 3.5 edtion game two years back. Long stroy short they kicked my out and I lost acess to my 3.5 stuff.

Actually...is there more to this story? How'd you get kicked out and lose access to your 3.5 things? Any chance of getting them back?

gourdcaptain
2011-12-16, 10:20 AM
It keeps 3.5's magic and skill systems, though wizards are even mroe brokenly overpowered *cough*freemetamagic*cough* and one of the main developers is a frequent caster-player, and as such frequently nerfs the other classes in new and exciting ways *cough*nomonkimprovednaturalattack*cough*

...Okay, I have to ask. What free metamagic source is it in PF that's so ridiculous compared to the variety of them I know of in 3.5e?

Because as for the ones available to Wizards I know of off the top of my head, there's the one for Generalists, Magical Lineage, and Spell Perfection. None of these seem to compare to some of the **** I've seen pulled off in 3.5e with Divine Metamagic (admittedly not Wizard) and Arcane Thesis and such. (I will admit that I'm playing one character in a 3.P game who's using metamagic reduction heavily - a Ranger who uses Magical Lineage to Extend Spell all his Swift Haste's.)


However... If you're just playing with PF materials with no 3.5, melee in general got its mobility bumped down pretty much to WotC's Complete-Warrior-era melee design, so it can be painful in that way. When WotC realized how badly they were screwing melee and did all sorts of awesome stuff to fix it late in 3.5, I assure you that Paizo designers were the sort of players that shouted "overpowered" at it. As a really simplified metric... if your 3.5 games included the Tome of Battle, going exclusively Pathfinder will feel like a big **** you to melee.

Yeah, there's a reason the melee characters in the game of PF I'm currently playing are a Barbarian going for Greater Beast Totem, a Mobile Fighter, and a Ranger with the mounted combat style aiming for Mounted Skirmisher. You can get a LOT more done with move-and-full attackers.

Vknight
2011-12-17, 12:27 AM
4e is fun and simple to understand
3.5 is fun but can be overly complicated with skills etc.
Pathfinder blends the two removing most stupid rules that popped up in 3.5 but still has some idiotic ones

So yes if you don't like 4e's magic and you don't like skills that should be the same being in separate pools among other things Pathfinder is great.

Its also got the most broken Monk build ever.

Curious
2011-12-17, 03:00 AM
Its also got the most broken Monk build ever.

What on earth are you talking about.

The Glyphstone
2011-12-17, 09:37 AM
What on earth are you talking about.

Well, relative to core Monk, Hungry Ghost Quigong Monk can be a real beast. For someone who doesn't consider Monks to be the redheaded stepchildren of 3.5, it could look 'broken' instead of 'good'.

Psyren
2011-12-17, 09:39 AM
Well, relative to core Monk, Hungry Ghost Quigong Monk can be a real beast. For someone who doesn't consider Monks to be the redheaded stepchildren of 3.5, it could look 'broken' instead of 'good'.

Read: Someone who hasn't compared Monk to any T4 or better class, ever :smalltongue:

The Glyphstone
2011-12-17, 11:16 AM
Read: Someone who hasn't compared Monk to any T4 or better class, ever :smalltongue:

And yet said archtype combo can actually pull T4-level duties - check it out on the PFSRD sometime. It took me a long time to rationalize the existence of a Monk that could pull its own weight, but in a PF group that tolerates T4s to begin with (Read: 60-80% of RL game groups:smalltongue:), HGQ critfishers can be disturbingly effective.

Curious
2011-12-17, 03:30 PM
And yet said archtype combo can actually pull T4-level duties - check it out on the PFSRD sometime. It took me a long time to rationalize the existence of a Monk that could pull its own weight, but in a PF group that tolerates T4s to begin with (Read: 60-80% of RL game groups:smalltongue:), HGQ critfishers can be disturbingly effective.

Hm, you present a good argument. I suppose I'll just let that particular insinuation slide. :smallamused:

The Glyphstone
2011-12-17, 05:20 PM
Hm, you present a good argument. I suppose I'll just let that particular insinuation slide. :smallamused:

Our monthly Monk Detractors Anonymous meetings have free cookies and punch.:smallcool:

JohnnyCancer
2011-12-20, 11:29 PM
It think it's a great improvement on Third Edition. They brushed up the classes nicely, there's fewer dead levels for non-spellcasters, and combat maneuvers such as grappling and tripping are much easier to resolve.

Vknight
2011-12-21, 01:41 AM
Also Zen Archers are really fun, Lvl11, on a Flurry with the right build gets 9attacks.

Leolo
2011-12-21, 03:28 AM
At least it makes some fun and is a good system. I really liked my pathfinder group and we had a great campaign.

But most of the things i liked on the system are those that are based in 3.5 while most of the changes where mediocre at best - and some of them are outright things that decreased the fun i had in this group.

Polymorph changes where the most annoying for me, followed by the changes regarding skills and some feats. The gap between some of the good and mediocre classes is actually greater than before. Most of the time the changes went in exactly the wrong direction. That does not make Pathfinder RPG a bad system. It's still good, it is still to much like 3.5 to screw it at all.

But if someone would have opened a post here and posted some of the rules changes Pathfinder RPG as his own idea some years ago those houserules would have been heavily critizised.

Pathfinder RPG is good for the 3.5 community cause it keeps a 3.5 like playstyle available and has much support regarding adventures and setting. But if you have 3.5 and just some minor issues with the system your own houserules have a good chance to be better.

Psyren
2011-12-21, 10:29 AM
And yet said archtype combo can actually pull T4-level duties - check it out on the PFSRD sometime. It took me a long time to rationalize the existence of a Monk that could pull its own weight, but in a PF group that tolerates T4s to begin with (Read: 60-80% of RL game groups:smalltongue:), HGQ critfishers can be disturbingly effective.

You misread me: I was responding to "someone who doesn't consider Monks to be the redheaded stepchildren of 3.5," not "someone who thinks HGQ monks are good."

The Glyphstone
2011-12-21, 01:46 PM
You misread me: I was responding to "someone who doesn't consider Monks to be the redheaded stepchildren of 3.5," not "someone who thinks HGQ monks are good."

Indeed.

Though, thinking on the analogy, even red-headed stepchildren get treated very well, if they live in Ireland. And even core 3.5 Monks don't look awful if they're in a game with low-oped Fighters, Paladins, and healbots.

Roxxy
2011-12-25, 03:20 PM
Pathfinder is my RPG of choice. It's similar to 3.5, but with a better skill system, a reduction save or screwed spells, far fewer creatures immune to sneak attacks or critical hits, and no more dead levels. There is also the archetype system, which I love. It's also able to be used with 3.5 supplements.

Othniel Edden
2011-12-25, 03:56 PM
As someone that likes 3.5 but is just starting to collect books, Pathfinder exsisting helps a lot. It allowed me to start off relatively cheap(free and then later got the book as a gift), and I enjoy many of the ideas they put forth. Plus paizo produces some really nice prewritten adventures to get my feet wet as I start to DM.

Manateee
2011-12-25, 10:24 PM
Our monthly Monk Detractors Anonymous meetings have free cookies and punch.:smallcool:
I thought punch was the monk's schtick and baking was typically their one feasible party role.

(Evasion, Poison immunity and the power to speak to yeast?please :smalltongue:)