Avoid ECL classes

[masteraleph]

Originally posted by Zoltan: I cant say that you're wrong. 2 level penalty is a big penalty in early levels but for high levels it's ok, 38 spell resistance oh god I cant believe it!!

I'm just waiting til my drow pally gets his holy avenger...

[toriuxik]

lol, the monk has 10 strength and serves well. Also, I'm not an idiot, I don't have the monk pick up the paltry reward moneys. I let other pick it up. lol

Also, the monk gets extra HP from the paladin level. When starting out a monk at level 1, its a good idea to include toughness, as your HP is rather icky. Of course, since I went with a paly first, I didn't have to waste that feat.

Also, in what way does having a paly level hinder my monk? None. She still gets her dandy monk abilities.

[Gimli]

He suffers from Cha because it ate up 8 starting ability points that IMHO should have been divvied up amongst Str & Dex (and if any was leftover, Con). It makes him weaker as a combatant, period.

"The only benefit I've ever found for being a human is the bonus feat. Of course, having a bonus to wis and cha outweighs this for a monk/paladin."

Humans also have no ECL penalty; they get a bonus skill point at every level, and get 4 bonus points at character creation; and they have no favored class. And I think the multi in question (monk/pali) is a mistake in the first place. Not that I don't like Aasimars - they and the Drow are the only races with a net +4 in ability points. I just think the way you're using their points is unwise and wasteful. This is just my opinion of course.

Dex has nothing to do with unarmed attacks here, so Str is very important. Not only to increase your chances to hit but to up damage. Monks can't take weapon finesse for their unarmed attacks, also they can't focus and/or specialize with unarmed. So the *only* way to bump it with stats is via Str.

No one's saves are great at level 1, but that's no reason to max Cha and take a Paladin level. One of the Monk's strongest points is their great saving throws, so I just don't see why you want to add to them at the expense of his other stats. I would suggest that a pure Human Monk, with a better blend of stats (not only would I not put 8 points into Cha, I would rob from the stat down to a 4 or so) would mop the floor with your Aasimar in a fight. You'd be 2 levels behind him, and your AC, BAB and damage would all be less. Also you have to be lawful good with your build, and evil Monks aren't effected by alot of the alignment-based spells that will be cast his way (such as unholy blight, etc).

[Gimli]

"lol, the monk has 10 strength and serves well."

Ick! What a wussy Monk [img]smile.gif[/img] You'd be +4 behind in both Str and Damage compared with a "real" Monk. You've got a pretty-boy who's a weakling [img]smile.gif[/img] j/k

"Also, the monk gets extra HP from the paladin level. When starting out a monk at level 1, its a good idea to include toughness, as your HP is rather icky. Of course, since I went with a paly first, I didn't have to waste that feat. "

I disagree, I would never waste a feat on Toughness anyway - actually my ideal Monk wouldn't use unarmed fighting and would start with 4 fighter levels, but even if I were going pure I would not take toughness, I'd just buff him with spells to protect him. Also since he'd have a better Dex than yours his AC would be better so he'd get hit less (would probably have a better Con too).

"Also, in what way does having a paly level hinder my monk? None. She still gets her dandy monk abilities."

It puts all of those abilities one level behind - plus one more level because of the Aasimar's ECL penalty. Your monk abilities would always be 2 levels less than a pure Human monk's - that's how they're hindered.

[The Hierophant]

From a technical standpoint I guess we could all debate the ups and downs of various races until the cows come home, but would tat really get anything useful done? Probably not. You guys paid your hard-earned cash for this game (you did pay for the game didn't you? [img]graemlins/nono.gif[/img] ), use whatever races and classes suit your role-playing tastes.
The bottom line is that this is a role-playing game, the whole beauty of it is that you can create whatever characters you feel that you want to play as. You don't have to take the characters that the game-designers give you, it's wonderful. I persoanlly have 2 Paladins in my current party, one is Aasimar, the other is Human. The Aasimar one is the party's leader due to his charisma, wisdom and celestial heritage. The Human guy is his younger, less experienced squire (sorta like Obi Wan Kenobi to Quaigon Jin). I might be able to get better numbers on my skill sheet if I had another human instead of an aasimar, but to be honest I don't care. It's the characterization and the role-playing of it all that counts.

ps: Sorry for rambling on, I just thought maybe a few of us are starting to take the technical side of things a little too seriously. These games are for pleasure, not work [img]smile.gif[/img]

[Jack of Speed]

"Yes, playing is for pleasure." [img]smile.gif[/img] There doesnt always have to be a PERFECT formula for "How to have fun." [img]smile.gif[/img] [img]smile.gif[/img] [img]smile.gif[/img]

[Gimli]

I'm not saying Aasimars are a poor choice by any stretch - I have an Aasimar Sorcerer and he rocks, and have used one as a Fighter/Paladin as well. The +4 bonus to ability points for just -1 ECL is pretty nice, and they are cool from a RP point of view too (not to mention getting the element resistances and darkvision).

I think the debate began when it was suggested a Human would "stink up the room" compared to an Aasimar, which just isn't true; and also about the merits of a Paladin/Monk build. I don't think those are defensible positions and they have nothing to do with roleplaying. Humans IMHO are a very strong race.

[Zoltan]

yes playing for pleasure exactly. for ex, I know that human pallys are better but I have an aasmir paladin.

aasmirs have +4 but humans also get +4. (-1 level cost 2 CON points and +1 skill point per level costs 2 INT poinst)

[Gimli]

Actually if you really want to power-game, you could say humans have +9 Int advantage as far as skill points go. A human with a 3 Int (as low as it can go) will still get 2 skill points per level. Any other race needs a 12 in Int to get 2 per level. So long as the human in question doesn't rely on skills that are Int-based, there's no penalty either for being a 3 int rock [img]smile.gif[/img]

[toriuxik]

lol, as I said, 18 dexterity. I don't see a problem with that. I also use a weapon until my BAB gets high enough (I used moonblade). I COULD have used weapon finesse instead and just suffered a short sword +1 or a similar weapon, but I liked the undead killing portion.

An ECL is not really a big difference. As I said, the only thing that humans that I'd want for one of my characters is the bonus feat.

Their is also a touch of REALISM in having a high charisma score for a monk. lol, heaven forbid I make a decision based on thoughts OTHER than of powergaming... lol

Monks saves are not really any better than anybody elses in particular. It certainly isn't their 'chief strength' by any stretch. Also, have you ever had the joy of having your monk fail his saving throw and be halted in the fight? Its really annoying. Monks have poor HD for a warrior, and their BAB is low. Thus, I can use spells to aide his strength enough (which isn't much, its good enough by itself really).

Skills don't amount to anything. They are pointless for a warrior. A waste of time even. So HOW does having that 1 extra skill point help that human fighter? lol, it doesn't. And yet, you keep mentioning it like its important? lol, how does it stack up to the handy sunscorch ability? Or perhaps the nightvision (which is better than 1 skill point per level by far)? Or perhaps, the bonus to stats? Or perhaps... lol, the list goes on.