Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="silverblade56" data-source="post: 6186903" data-attributes="member: 6750003">On monk/sorcerers (assuming both at the same time): Had several in my games. And they were strong because they usually ended up taking Enlightened Fist (3.5) and kicked so much butt. Same goes for other combinations (monk&cleric/wizard, sorcerer&fighter) but that's not the point here.On sorcerers (just single class, as I think you probably meant): Had several of these too. Many even. People don't always like huge lists of spells prepared. One guy loved it but that's a topic for another time. I guess my point for sorcerers was that sorcerers in 3.5/PF are tier 2. In fact I just rolled one up in PF's kingmaker and it was the strongest party member in 80% of situations.Monks (again, assuming you meant just the single class): Monks are harder. That doesn't mean they're truly gimped. Even excluding combinations of monks and other classes which make truly unkillable, I've had a lot of really tricky monks. Monks may not be the best killers but they can live through most everything - which means they're very hard to kill. And yes, on the matter of "best killers" I had one (again PF..) in my most recent campaign that was so powerful that he was breaking the game, making it not fun for others. I had to use a lizardfolk with class levels and a total ECL about 5 (maybe more I forget now, it wasn't less than 5) higher than the monk just to challenge him - and ended up killing him after the fight (during RP moments as the party wanted him dead and didn't help or stop the lizardfolk chief from chewing out his throat).But it has nothing to do with entitlement, even if that is somehow a bad word.My point I guess being is that monk/sorcerer, sorcerers, or monks are not "mechanically gimped." Tier 2 for the one, and strongest melee combatant I've had thus far in PF for the other. And a really strong contender when you mix them, as often happened in 3.5 days.</blockquote>This is a bit off topic, so I will just respond to the monk/sorcerer thing once.  Yeah, you could probably make a decent monk/sorcerer in 3.5 with feats like ascetic mage, and practiced spellcaster as well as  the enlightened fist PrC.  I'm sure it would take a number of levels, for it too be good, though.  In Pathfinder, you no longer have those choices. I still don't see how you think monk is that good (Seriously, how did you have a broken monk? Was he an ogre?). A sorcerer is pretty good. That does not mean that a monk/sorcerer is great. It's not even passable. An adept is better.  Monk is one of the weaker martial classes, and a monk/sorcerer is very MAD. You better have less than 14 in only one stat (int) Think about this. A monk 5/ sorcerer 5 has terrible hit points, terrible attack and damage, bad AC, and has only 2nd level spells. That is not tier 2.  You might be okay with going dragon disciple, but still not very good.  My point isn't that a monk/sorcerer sucks. My point is that multiclassing any two classes should always be close to the power level/usefulness of non-multiclassed or more common multiclassed (fighter/rogue) characters nor should it be difficult or impossible to do certain combinations because of overly restrictive rules. Ability score requirements are just an unnecessary restriction on something that already has  a decent opportunity cost. I want  it to work as well as the 4E hybrid class system which is probably the best multiclass system D&D has ever had.  At least 4E got that right.[/QUOTE]

Verification