The Quasi-perpetual Pathfinder Thread

[kenada]

Regarding Lawful Monks: there's a thread on the Pathfinder forums making the same argument; one side says "the Lawful restriction is arbitrary, refers to a very specific kind of character, and restricts an already niche and out-of-place class". The other says "the devotion and discipline defined as Lawful behavior is required for the classes pusedo-magical abilities to function - otherwise, they are just brawlers".

That thread inspired me to post here.

Personally, I agree with you; in fact, I've long thought that the Monk path was much more Chaotic than Lawful - that it should be a personal journey of self-mastery and self-discovery, rather than rote mastery of a pre-determined series of movements and meditations.

:cheer:

regarding half-elf druids: not that it's relevant anymore, but the ability makes perfect sense to me. Druids can either access a single domain or gain an animal companion; the race ability improves both of these, so is useful regardless of which the druid chooses.

:confused:

regarding bards: yeah, the bard alternate paths are amazing. They let players take a very middle-of-the-road class and move it more towards pretty much any extreme, while still keeping the versatility and jack-of-all-trades "feel". Most of them seem fairly balanced, as well, when you compare what they have to give up. My all bard party idea doesn't seem so out there now, does it?

With these alternate paths, no. I think it could be fun. I’m not sure how much fun it would be to play the SR debuffing magician, but the other casters in the party would probably love you for it.


Also, it looks like d20pfsrd.com has finally added the APG classes to the site, or they just weren’t discoverable being located under base classes instead of core classes, which seems like a pointless distinction.

[kenada]

One thing I like about the alternate paths is that they let players customize their characters in ways that previously required meticulous builds and prestige classes to obtain.

Is there really any value to prestige classes now? It seems like most of them can be recast as alternate paths instead.

[BobChuck]

Here's the description of the Druid's Nature Bond ability. Read it.

Basically, a druid can choose to either have access to a single Cleric domain (and +1 spell slot per spell level, which must be used for that domain spell - like a Specialist Wizard) or have an Animal Companion. They cannot do both.

The Half-Elf Druid favored class bonus grants extra uses of per-day-based domain powers (which is useless if the Druid has no domains) and something that I forget that helps out animal companions (which is useless if the Druid does not have one). So it helps out both kinds of Druids, but doesn't grant "double bonuses" or anything.

[kenada]

Oh, you’re talking about my house rules on the wiki. My problem was that I found the wording confusing, but now that you explain it, it makes sense.

[Thomas Kerwin]

I let Brad know about obsidianportal, you can invite him, he's my friend on there. 

Unfortunately, I won't be able to play this week. :-(

I'll write up a character diary post on the wiki.  Is there anything I can do to set up some brewing or fix the balistas?  I have skills for either of those activities.

[kenada]

[Measure Zero]

I think that having a multi-class barbarian-monk would be a little strange.  I don't see how precise, practiced strikes using just the right amount of force work with a blind homicidal rage.  I think that this situation would require a reinterpretation of the fluff behind at least one of these classes.  I suppose that the same could be said for barbarian-rogues, but I somehow think that extra damage via dirty fighting makes sense with rage; sneak attacks don't need to be held back.

My guess is that the alignment restrictions for both classes were put in place to avoid this dissonance between the two concepts, and a potentially overpowered killing machine (barbarians get good stuff even at first level, and all of it synergises with monk stuff).

[BobChuck]

Except that multi-classing with a monk is basically a non-starter. Most of their class abilities are based on Monk-Level.

Flurry of blows is not a bonus that adds to your base attack, it's your flat monk level, and replaces your Base Attack. So a multiclass Monk 4/ Barb 4 can flurry at +4/+4 or make normal attacks at +7/+2. A Monk 8 can flurry at +8/+8/+3, while a Barb 8 attacks at +8/+3 and has improved Rage and additional Rage powers.

Multiclassing in D&D 3.5 was pretty much required to get a good character; multiclassing in Pathfinder is usually a bad choice, unless you are going for something specific.

[kenada]

I think that having a multi-class barbarian-monk would be a little strange.  I don't see how precise, practiced strikes using just the right amount of force work with a blind homicidal rage.  I think that this situation would require a reinterpretation of the fluff behind at least one of these classes.  I suppose that the same could be said for barbarian-rogues, but I somehow think that extra damage via dirty fighting makes sense with rage; sneak attacks don't need to be held back.

Assuming that flurry of blows could be used during rage, I don’t have any problem with saying that the barbarian/monk is channeling his rage to increase the potency of his fighting.

My guess is that the alignment restrictions for both classes were put in place to avoid this dissonance between the two concepts, and a potentially overpowered killing machine (barbarians get good stuff even at first level, and all of it synergises with monk stuff).

There is nothing stopping someone from getting X levels of monk and then X levels of barbarian. There also is nothing stopping an arcane caster from casting rage on the monk, nor an oracle with the mantle of moonlight revelation. The consensus on the Paizo forums seems to be that multiclassing monk/barbarian would be pretty awful for much the same reasons that Rob cites.

The monk alignment restriction feels like a hold-over from AD&D. The reason for asserting that disciplined = lawful only relies on the assumption that chaotic = random behavior (i.e., can’t focus on one thing), which has’t been true since AD&D 2e.

[Measure Zero]

Except that multi-classing with a monk is basically a non-starter. Most of their class abilities are based on Monk-Level.

Flurry of blows is not a bonus that adds to your base attack, it's your flat monk level, and replaces your Base Attack. So a multiclass Monk 4/ Barb 4 can flurry at +4/+4 or make normal attacks at +7/+2. A Monk 8 can flurry at +8/+8/+3, while a Barb 8 attacks at +8/+3 and has improved Rage and additional Rage powers.

Multiclassing in D&D 3.5 was pretty much required to get a good character; multiclassing in Pathfinder is usually a bad choice, unless you are going for something specific.

I was thinking more along the lines of Barb 1/Monk 7.  I don't have the book to know exactly how much of a disadvantage that would bring, but from what I remember from 3.5 it should give you a 10' movement bonus above the monk's movement bonus and a rage that means that for one encounter a day the monk/barb hits harder and more often than a monk should at most levels.

In other encounters he is missing out primarily on the increased damage die and extra attack (when applicable) he would get from having that last monk level.  As I recall, the barb rage bonus equals or exceeds the damage bonus from having a larger damage die, and extra attacks and damage aren't relevant at most levels.  DCs for monk super attacks go down by 1 and they shouldn't be usable in rage, which is the only real defect that I can see.  Again, I don't have the book, so I can't verify any of this.

[kenada]

Except that multi-classing with a monk is basically a non-starter. Most of their class abilities are based on Monk-Level.

Flurry of blows is not a bonus that adds to your base attack, it's your flat monk level, and replaces your Base Attack. So a multiclass Monk 4/ Barb 4 can flurry at +4/+4 or make normal attacks at +7/+2. A Monk 8 can flurry at +8/+8/+3, while a Barb 8 attacks at +8/+3 and has improved Rage and additional Rage powers.

Multiclassing in D&D 3.5 was pretty much required to get a good character; multiclassing in Pathfinder is usually a bad choice, unless you are going for something specific.

I was thinking more along the lines of Barb 1/Monk 7.  I don't have the book to know exactly how much of a disadvantage that would bring, but from what I remember from 3.5 it should give you a 10' movement bonus above the monk's movement bonus and a rage that means that for one encounter a day the monk/barb hits harder and more often than a monk should at most levels.

Barbarians in Pathfinder get 4+Con rounds of rage per day at first level. I suppose this makes it a bit ‘worse’ in a way.

In other encounters he is missing out primarily on the increased damage die and extra attack (when applicable) he would get from having that last monk level.  As I recall, the barb rage bonus equals or exceeds the damage bonus from having a larger damage die, and extra attacks and damage aren't relevant at most levels.  DCs for monk super attacks go down by 1 and they shouldn't be usable in rage, which is the only real defect that I can see.

Comparing* a Monk 7/Barbarian 1 to a Monk 8 results in the pure monk pulling ahead (slightly) in DPR when they both flurry (26.2 vs. 27.6). If neither monk is flurrying, then the it’s the other way around (8.5 vs. 10.6 or 12.1 vs. 14.0 w/Vital Strike), but what’s the point? A pure barbarian is going to be much better than the monk at hitting things really hard with one attack. I wouldn’t call that an overpowered killing machine.

Again, I don't have the book, so I can't verify any of this.

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/

--
* Both monks have a base of 18 Str, +2 racial,  2 +Str boosts (at levels 4 and 8), a +2 belt of giant strength, and Weapon Focus (unarmed strike). Their target was a CR8 monster, which has an average AC of 21.

[kenada]

Strictly speaking, I should be rolling your durations for you. However, this seems like a pointless burden for the DM. As long as people don’t metagame it, I’m not going to demand that they be rolled secretly. Anyway, since I’m the one who tracks the durations, I think most people forget when they end anyway.

[Measure Zero]

I only picked level 8 because that was what Rob used.  I think that the multi-class would be better than the pure monk at any level where the next level doesn't result in the monk getting a boost to his damage dice. I wouldn't say it's overpowered, I guess, but I still think that it is silly (out of control aikido!).

I guess I also think that the old alignment definitions are "correct".  The word chaotic means "completely lacking order" and not "values freedom".  The word lawful means "obeys the law" and not "is trustworthy and obeys legitimate authority".  By the correct definitions of these words, they are mutually exclusive.  By the technical game definitions, the only thing stopping someone from being both lawful and chaotic simultaneously is the fact that mutual exclusivity is an added assumption.

Their meanings are somewhat close to those of their English cognates, but far enough away (apparently) to cause confusion and argument.  I think that the whole system should be scrapped in favor of each character having a short list of major personality traits that are interpreted as good or evil depending on which religion you ask.  I don't think that would be too difficult to implement for D&D or its derivatives, and it would actually aid role-playing.

[kenada]

I only picked level 8 because that was what Rob used.  I think that the multi-class would be better than the pure monk at any level where the next level doesn't result in the monk getting a boost to his damage dice.

Poking around a bit in my DPR spreadsheet, it looks like they are close with the one level of barbarian having a slight advantage. If the pure monk has the alchemist in the party brew him some potions of rage, then he embarasses the multiclassed monk.

I wouldn't say it's overpowered, I guess, but I still think that it is silly (out of control aikido!).

I guess I’m tending to think of the monk as a magical martial artist rather than as whatever stereotype the RAW are going for.

I guess I also think that the old alignment definitions are "correct".  The word chaotic means "completely lacking order" and not "values freedom".  The word lawful means "obeys the law" and not "is trustworthy and obeys legitimate authority".  By the correct definitions of these words, they are mutually exclusive.  By the technical game definitions, the only thing stopping someone from being both lawful and chaotic simultaneously is the fact that mutual exclusivity is an added assumption.

Sure. However, it’s probably best to just treat them as jargon.

[BobChuck]

I guess I also think that the old alignment definitions are "correct".  The word chaotic means "completely lacking order" and not "values freedom".  The word lawful means "obeys the law" and not "is trustworthy and obeys legitimate authority".  By the correct definitions of these words, they are mutually exclusive.

The problem with using these definitions is, well, people are morons.

A significant portion of players, particularly inexperienced or younger players, will automatically go to the very far end of what is permissible in any given artificial system of morality - and then start pushing. The whole "I get to play a total badass loner who follows his own rules and no one else's" power fantasy is very common.

There is nothing inherently wrong with that.

However, it doesn't work so good when trying to put together a team or group or party. Most - and I stress most - players eventually more or less move on (though coming back to it every once and a while is fun).

Others (20-30% based on my personal experiences) instead stay at the extreme, toning back their behavior only a little, because letting go is fun (I'm looking at you Josh). Again, there is nothing inherently wrong with this, though it does somewhat limit the sorts of campaigns one can play in (which is why players tend to move on in the first place).

A rare few don't do either of the above, and just keep on playing the same "total badass loner action hero" person over and over again; these players can prove rather... tiring to deal with. I am unfortunate to have gamed with two people like this on a regular (not one-time) basis.

I mention all of this because your definitions, while quite reasonable on paper, run into a snag. A good portion of players are going to go Chaotic "Neutral", as described above, and the more "extreme / niche / out there" the base definition for Chaotic becomes, the worse those players will behave, because the book says that's what they are supposed / allowed to do.

Like everything else in a game, it's not enough to just sit and think about how alignment should work; you need to look at the extremes and see how players will react while at them, because that's where a significant sub-set of the player-base will immediately go.