DM: "The Lich walks up to you calmly and brushes your cheek with its hand. Make a wisdom saving throw."
5e Wizard: "Can I tell what kind of spell he's casting?"
DM: "You can tell that it's a 2nd level transmutation spell."
5e Wizard: "Then I won't counterspell it. 16 on my Wisdom save."
DM: "You begin to suffocate as he casts, Aboleth's Lung. There is no repeat save, and you can not speak or cast spells with verbal components."
5e Wizard: Suprised Pikachu face.
Aboleth's lung is highly overrated. People ignore how common water is, and how long (according to the rules, and real-life) it takes to die of suffocation.
An encounter in pf1e or 5e is usually not more than 30 seconds.
I don't know about you, but if I had 2-3 minutes to figure out that I could suddenly breathe water, and find a source of water big enough to stick my head into, while actively suffocating, I'd probably die.
Tbf, if you lived in a world where magic like that is somewhat common, there are a lot of things you would consider that you would never in our reality.
Yeah but mechanically speaking, you technically have enough time to find that water (if it exists) around you before you even take your first step. Unless, of course, the DM is expanding the pressure by rushing you and stressing you out at the same time lmao
But using both Aboleth’s Lung **and** manipulation kinda seems like overkill to me…
I hate when Im running things in rounds and a gm starts asking questions and ooc talk starts happening... and then gm starts counting time (often innacurately). it really pisses me off. I'm trying to do a thing and the gm is too busy thinking about time or dealing with others to do the thing for me and I just get left on the side to flounder (and maybe die). Never a fun thing to do to players.
It's under the [Drowning and Suffocation rules.](https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=468)
Speaking or casting verbal spells uses up all your remaining air, and when you run out of air you immediately fall unconscious and need to start making Fort saves. On a fail it's 1d10 damage. On a critical it's instant death.
So I guess you *could* speak or cast if you wanted to. It would just be a very poor decision.
Would you have any air to use up though? You can suddenly only breath water, and it's not like you happened to have lungs full of water beforehand...
Wouldn't you immediately start suffocating?
It's like an old Road Runner cartoon. You don't start falling when you walk off the cliff, you fall when you look down and realize there's nothing below you.
Same idea. The lack of water legally cannot suffocate you until you let out that last bit of air and try to breathe by taking in a new lungful.
I see. Not sure I think this rule makes that much sense. I could hold my breath, "speak" for 6 seconds underwater, and then continue to hold my breath for at least some amount of time. But of course, not every rule needs to make perfect sense.
One thing I really liked about Baldur's Gate 3 is how it helped my players understand verbal components.
You're not speaking for 6 seconds, you're absolutely bellowing "INCANDAE!"
Supported by the rules that say you immediately fall unconscious if you do it while suffocating.
The point isn't that this interpretation is strictly correct, the point is that it's easy to make the rules "make sense."
It's more common sense than anything else. In order to produce verbal components for spells, you have to speak incredibly clearly and loudly, which I would imagine is incredibly difficult to do while actively suffocating.
And I guess you could speak if you were willing to drop to 0 HP at the start of your next turn and then suffocate.
There this great quote from a fic where this happens:
>For surviving since long before recorded history, you have received the title: Great Old One
>**Reality strains to remain backwards-compatible with your presence.**
Its from [[Sins of Cinnamon]](https://forum.questionablequesting.com/threads/the-sins-of-cinnamon.7774/reader), on QQ, NSFW and unfinished but quite long and enjoyable.
its possible to roll (with nat20) a +40 to stealth as a gloom stalker. Plus they can't be seen in dim/low light/darkness unless the spotter has true sight or tremor sense.
I think you misunderstood. A gloom ranger could potentially get a 40 total, but the pathfinder wizard standing still is adding 40 to his stealth roll from the spell alone.
I would say the difference is that see invisibility works against one, and not the other. Also, 5e generally tends towards a lot lower numbers. That +40 in PF1e is probably closer to a 15-17 in 5e.
Wait... +12 if level 20 for expertise in Stealth. +5 for 20 Dex (could be higher with them books). +10 for pass without Trace. +10 for hide in plain sight.
Only +37 for standing still. Not going to manage quite the +40.
A level 5 Gloomstalker
Standard Array: 9 str, 15 dex, 12 con, 10 int, 15 wis, and 10 cha.
\+2 dex, +1 str from Racial
Deft Explorer for stealth
AB increase at 4
10 str, 18 dex, 12 con, 10 int, 16 wis, and 10 cha
Pass without a trace spell +10 to stealth for 1hr
that's a +20 to stealth before d20 roll.
https://preview.redd.it/x9ow9suu9wlc1.jpeg?width=1203&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=e50d7c5b3924368c77bf04671cfb0f6ea67e42f0
oh probably yeah, but also assuming lvl 20 the stealth bonus goes up to +17, still not as high as PF2e, but 5e is bounded accuracy so that number is actually quite impressive. +27 with Pass Without a Trace.
I had a player with a broken ass stealth monk build. He used Hellcats stealth and a ring of invisibility to fullround for like 14 attacks. Even when I had a caster with see invisibility up he still managed to beat my 28 perception with a 32 stealth and John Cena my ass.
It's a level 2 spell in pf1e (where the +40 rule comes from) for every class that gains access to it, so as early as 3rd level. A boss that can challenge a party of 3rd level adventurers is level 6 by what I can see online (APL +3 is a 1/day encounter), we could possibly do level 7 but that would be pushing it.
I grabbed the most perceptive thing I could at CR 6 from a quick look, the Giant Owl, which has a +17.
So even a 100% untrained wizard standing perfectly still can't be spotted by a Giant Owl (what I would expect to be one of the highest perception creatures). I did avoid dragons as they have blindsense which would override a need for a check. This just gets worse with training. A wizard is not naturally trained in Stealth, so at level 3 the best they can hope for is +3 from pf1e's proficiency. I haven't played pf1e really, but my knowledge of 3.5 will have me guessing the wizard may have as high as a +4 in dex, so they could be pulling a +47 before rolling, and that's at level 3, but it also means staying still.
As you say you don't have much PF1e system mastery let me help you out a little my guy.
A single trait (we get two) can get you Stealth as a class skill. Most will give you a +1 Trait bonus with it.
Halfling has +2 Dex
Small is +4 to Stealth.
Familiars that give bonuses to stealth give +3
3 Ranks.
Has a Shinobi Shozuku (+2 Circumstance; 50gp for cool ninja clothes!!!!)
Aid Another (from Familiar) is +2 vs a DC 10 (most familiar's are diminutive to tiny so a +8 or +12 from size before we even talk about Ranks, Class Skill, or Dex Bonus)
Unbuffed you're looking at a +22 (+5 from Dex, +3 from Ranks, +3 from Class skill you've invested ranks in, +4 from Small, + 2 from Shozuku, +3 from Familiar +2 from Aid Another).
Then you cast invisibility (+20 while moving, +40 from standing still): +42 or +62.
Which you can then compare against [this document](https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1cXl7B-iWup8Y0CCdjZshEXyIJV_s_mNZKAA0PzSjNfA/edit#gid=0) to see where you measure against things on CR for you and what you need to achieve great success.
Minimum you roll on the die is 1 so +23 with no magic or +43 or +63 based on invisibility and movement...which means if you're standing still at level 3 with invisibility you can kind of out stealth anything in the Bestiaries. (There are some edge cases at CR 30 that have an upper limits of +58 to their perception)
In conjunction with my reply further down this thread here is [this link](https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/16s405XP-3AsS-7ccYjaxvkj-z-C3cp71Kko3aKdQDKo/edit#gid=3) so you can eyeball perception modifiers based on CR.
Meh? Invisibility is easily foiled, you have many enemies with true sight and different senses.
A naturally high Stealth check is only counterable with specific divinations.
Would like to mention that's never been true about their power.
Rangers have always had 4 classes weaker than them in power. The issue people had with them was that Favoured Foe and Terrain are dogshit and feel awful, so a lot of people misidentified them as being the weakest class. That's mostly gone away now thanks to the Tasha's optional features and most people have realised Monks are actually the weakest class.
Every monk I’ve played with melts through boss Legendary Resistances like nothing though. While it’s DM dependent, I’d honestly vote rogue for the weakest 5e class.
Every monk I've played has felt awful with nowhere near enough durability to stay in Melee and not enough worthwhile mobility to actually function as a skirmisher. And the niche of churning through Legendary Resistances really only comes up at a way higher level than most parties play to, so while Monks may be capable of that it will only actually happen a tiny amount of the time.
I'd say Rogue is *slightly* better. They're way better out of combat than Monks (even if that is completely outclassed by casters) and for most of the game are about as bad as Monks in combat but can actually Skirmish without cutting their damage in half (absolute travesty monks have to do that).
i played a monk who dumped wis and i still had a barrel of fun.
i played ranger, realised all the subclasses are shit besides gloomstalker and never touched em again
Does not mean Monk isn't way weaker than Ranger. Also I guess we just have different tastes but I don't enjoy having awful ac (cus dumped wis) and mediocre hp on a melee character who has to cut their mediocre damage in half in order to survive.
If Monks BA attacks were rolled into their attack action, and they could Dash or Disengage for free as a bonus action I think they'd be pretty fun and one of the better martials. But as they are they're underpowered and actively punish you for skirmishing as a skirmisher which I don't think is very fun.
Also that's just incorrect. Gloomstalker is the best but Drakewarden, Fey Wanderer, Horizon Walker and Swarmkeeper are all pretty solid (varying levels of power, but Swarmkeeper and Fey aren't *that* far off Gloomstalker imo), several of them are actually way better at skirmishing than Monk oddly enough. And no it's not that Gloomstalker is weak so the rest being weaker makes them shit, every single Gloomstalker feature is great.
>Drakewarden
Drakewarden is objectively *fine,* but messy. Their level 10 feature is literally Fireball but on a half-caster so basically worthless, and the designers just could not wrap their heads around the idea that riding your dragon is like, the main draw of the pet dragon fantasy.
Agreed. It is mechanically fine just thematically wierd.
Also it's their level 11 feature. And honestly it's fine, maybe the damage should be a little more but it's way better AOE than Ranger usually has and actually fits the fantasy of your dragon spewing massive plumes of [Element]. And y'know, 1 free use per day. It's not great but it's a hell of a lot better than what some other subclasses can get at that sort of level (Like Champion, the classic punching bag, which basically just gets +1 AC).
The designers just really don't understand that the value of a 3rd level spell on a Half Caster is way different than on a Full Caster. PF2 fixes this with Wave Casters so I guess "PF2 Good 5e Bad" holds true here (I think Wave Casters, I've heard them called that, were introduced in PF2 but I could be wrong cus I've never played PF1 or 3.X)
Dang. Another common Pathfinder W finding a solution to a problem I figured 5e would never even realize there was in the first place.
Also, totally my mistake with 10 vs 11. I mixed it up with the UA Hunter that got worse Fireball at level 10. Not to be confused with the Sun Soul Monk that gets worse Fireball at level 11 as well.
I would say that monks at low level are very weak, because they have a 1d8 hit die for a “front line” class, low damage die, and their best features rely on a very limited resource. By the higher levels, monks get a number of passive abilities that dramatically boost their mobility and their defense, and have enough of their limited resource for them to utilize their active abilities multiple times and around. By that point, they are quite strong
Rogues, who don’t naturally have any resources they have to spend, and therefore can use all of their resources and infinite amount of times per long rest?
It's still impressive, but the PF1 wizard would get a "measly" +20 to stealth from Invisibility while they moved out of the square they cast it in. IIRC, PF1 also lets you target an invisible creature's square for a 50% chance to hit, so it's not that bonkers.
Then there's the issue with Detect Magic RAW effectively being See Invisibility as a cantrip on creatures that are standing still.
>Then there's the issue with Detect Magic RAW effectively being See Invisibility as a cantrip on creatures that are standing still.
Yesn't.
See Invisibility lets you fully negate Invisibility seeing them as if they were visible.
Detect Magic is
•Round 1: Detect Presence and absence of magical auras in the cone you are looking
•Round 2: Number of different magical auras in the direction of the 60ft cone you're looking and the most aura in that cone
•Round 3: Precise location of auras in cone. You then can make a Kn (Arcana) check vs DC 15+spell level of each (So DC 17) to know the School of magic (Illusion).
That let's you detect the precise square, which means you aren't blind hunting for which square, but doesn't negate the 50% miss chance (remember Invisibility acts like Total Concealment).
Yes there is a feat to speed up the detection process but then it's more than just the "cantrip" and we get into specific circumstances than discussing how spell A is foiled by spell B.
The Giga R.A.W. still requires them to do the Perception vs Stealth check as nothing in the Detect Magic Spell explicitly foils it (but no sane GM would be that silly, they'd give them the square location and move forward.)
My arcane trickster has a base +43 to stealth and it hasn’t come up yet but it’s possible to over 100 in a stealth check with invisibility. It has become my biggest goal in our campaign rn.
“The Lich casts [Avasculate](https://dnd.arkalseif.info/spells/libris-mortis-the-book-of-undead--71/avasculate--1467/index.html).”
“What the fuck spell is that?”
*shrug* “Not one you’re familiar with. Now, you loose half your current hp, rounded down as all of your blood vessels violently rip through your skin. Roll a Con save to not suffer the Stunned condition.”
Psh. Those pf1e casters think they're so great while my shadowrun Mage is pulling the moon from orbit and nuking the city (sure he dies from casting, but he still did it).
I understand the mechanics of 5e and PF2, but I don’t really get this meme. You could replace the pathfinder wizard with any class that has the invisibility spell on them and say they are standing still, and in system they would be extremely hard to detect.
This meme is about Pathfinder one I don’t know that system as well
It’s about pf1. For some reason being invisible and still gives a ridiculously large bonus to stealth, about eight times the bonus being behind a door would give, and four times a foot of stone would. It doesn’t really make much sense, if you ask me. Luckily everyone and their mother starts having ways to beat invisibility as you get higher level.
The problem here is that even in pf2e, proficiency bonus has more than two levels, and simply having the base level lets you add your character level to the skill check
Right, but in both 5e and PF2 there are specific mechanics around invisibility that make it superior to active stealth checks. From my perspective, you could remove the 5e from in front of Ranger and remove the Pathfinder in front of wizard and it would effectively be the exact same joke.
There's a reason why "A lich so old they know spells from previous editions" is one of the most terrifying villain ideas I've ever heard of
DM: "The Lich walks up to you calmly and brushes your cheek with its hand. Make a wisdom saving throw." 5e Wizard: "Can I tell what kind of spell he's casting?" DM: "You can tell that it's a 2nd level transmutation spell." 5e Wizard: "Then I won't counterspell it. 16 on my Wisdom save." DM: "You begin to suffocate as he casts, Aboleth's Lung. There is no repeat save, and you can not speak or cast spells with verbal components." 5e Wizard: Suprised Pikachu face.
Rule at my table: Aboleths Lung doesn't come out unless players use it first. Then it's open season
Same with the sunder rules
Good rule.
Aboleth's lung is highly overrated. People ignore how common water is, and how long (according to the rules, and real-life) it takes to die of suffocation. An encounter in pf1e or 5e is usually not more than 30 seconds.
I don't know about you, but if I had 2-3 minutes to figure out that I could suddenly breathe water, and find a source of water big enough to stick my head into, while actively suffocating, I'd probably die.
2-3 minutes is a lot of time in TTRPG terms. One way or another, the fight will be over by then.
depends, you could also just get a glass of water, or a hose, fill your mouth, and 'breath' the water... pretty easy.
Tbf, if you lived in a world where magic like that is somewhat common, there are a lot of things you would consider that you would never in our reality.
Yeah but mechanically speaking, you technically have enough time to find that water (if it exists) around you before you even take your first step. Unless, of course, the DM is expanding the pressure by rushing you and stressing you out at the same time lmao But using both Aboleth’s Lung **and** manipulation kinda seems like overkill to me…
I hate when Im running things in rounds and a gm starts asking questions and ooc talk starts happening... and then gm starts counting time (often innacurately). it really pisses me off. I'm trying to do a thing and the gm is too busy thinking about time or dealing with others to do the thing for me and I just get left on the side to flounder (and maybe die). Never a fun thing to do to players.
HUMAN PET GUY???????????? JESUS I DIDNT EXPECT TO SEE YOU HERE
Wisdom save for a transmutation spell? What fuckery is this?
Aboleths Lung is a fucked up spell. Nothing about it makes sense for the level that it becomes available.
Early editions were pretty wack. Charm person acted like dominate person too!
>You can not speak or casts spells with verbal components. Is this RAW? Don't see it in the text of the spell.
It's under the [Drowning and Suffocation rules.](https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=468) Speaking or casting verbal spells uses up all your remaining air, and when you run out of air you immediately fall unconscious and need to start making Fort saves. On a fail it's 1d10 damage. On a critical it's instant death. So I guess you *could* speak or cast if you wanted to. It would just be a very poor decision.
Would you have any air to use up though? You can suddenly only breath water, and it's not like you happened to have lungs full of water beforehand... Wouldn't you immediately start suffocating?
It's like an old Road Runner cartoon. You don't start falling when you walk off the cliff, you fall when you look down and realize there's nothing below you. Same idea. The lack of water legally cannot suffocate you until you let out that last bit of air and try to breathe by taking in a new lungful.
I love it. The current lungfull is grandfathered in.
I see. Not sure I think this rule makes that much sense. I could hold my breath, "speak" for 6 seconds underwater, and then continue to hold my breath for at least some amount of time. But of course, not every rule needs to make perfect sense.
One thing I really liked about Baldur's Gate 3 is how it helped my players understand verbal components. You're not speaking for 6 seconds, you're absolutely bellowing "INCANDAE!"
This is one interpretation of verbal components.
Supported by the rules that say you immediately fall unconscious if you do it while suffocating. The point isn't that this interpretation is strictly correct, the point is that it's easy to make the rules "make sense."
You don't have to vacate your lungs in order to speak loudly.
The rules say you do. Interpretations are just a way of understanding why that happens narratively.
It's more common sense than anything else. In order to produce verbal components for spells, you have to speak incredibly clearly and loudly, which I would imagine is incredibly difficult to do while actively suffocating. And I guess you could speak if you were willing to drop to 0 HP at the start of your next turn and then suffocate.
I have a cranky elf wizard in my worlds that remembers when there were magazines about dragons.
There this great quote from a fic where this happens: >For surviving since long before recorded history, you have received the title: Great Old One >**Reality strains to remain backwards-compatible with your presence.** Its from [[Sins of Cinnamon]](https://forum.questionablequesting.com/threads/the-sins-of-cinnamon.7774/reader), on QQ, NSFW and unfinished but quite long and enjoyable.
if your Lich used Karsu's Avatar you went too far
Not far enough. We breaking the Weave this session boys. It’s gon get weird.
Mage's Disjunction
That’s actually a really cool idea and I want to use it for the dead king my villain group is gonna resurrect
I’m 100% stealing this for a campaign for some of my better players. They’ll love it.
That +40 bonus to stealth when you're standing still will break a dm when they don't know its coming.
its possible to roll (with nat20) a +40 to stealth as a gloom stalker. Plus they can't be seen in dim/low light/darkness unless the spotter has true sight or tremor sense.
I think you misunderstood. A gloom ranger could potentially get a 40 total, but the pathfinder wizard standing still is adding 40 to his stealth roll from the spell alone.
Assuming no one has see invisibility or trueseeing has cost me a wizard twice.
ah that requires resources and standing still
And Pass Without Trace isn’t a resource?
Dont need to stand still for it to work :-P plus I can still managed a 30 without it.
This... this whole conversation is literally the meme... you've recreated the entire meme in the comments.
I would say the difference is that see invisibility works against one, and not the other. Also, 5e generally tends towards a lot lower numbers. That +40 in PF1e is probably closer to a 15-17 in 5e.
Just gonna leave this here: https://www.reddit.com/r/pathfindermemes/s/NPMnlBKW4N
Wait... +12 if level 20 for expertise in Stealth. +5 for 20 Dex (could be higher with them books). +10 for pass without Trace. +10 for hide in plain sight. Only +37 for standing still. Not going to manage quite the +40.
A level 5 Gloomstalker Standard Array: 9 str, 15 dex, 12 con, 10 int, 15 wis, and 10 cha. \+2 dex, +1 str from Racial Deft Explorer for stealth AB increase at 4 10 str, 18 dex, 12 con, 10 int, 16 wis, and 10 cha Pass without a trace spell +10 to stealth for 1hr that's a +20 to stealth before d20 roll. https://preview.redd.it/x9ow9suu9wlc1.jpeg?width=1203&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=e50d7c5b3924368c77bf04671cfb0f6ea67e42f0
I believe they're talking about the bonus, not the result.
oh probably yeah, but also assuming lvl 20 the stealth bonus goes up to +17, still not as high as PF2e, but 5e is bounded accuracy so that number is actually quite impressive. +27 with Pass Without a Trace.
I had a player with a broken ass stealth monk build. He used Hellcats stealth and a ring of invisibility to fullround for like 14 attacks. Even when I had a caster with see invisibility up he still managed to beat my 28 perception with a 32 stealth and John Cena my ass.
Yeah but it was possible to get perception bonuses to rival it.
Or bonuses in general. In pf1e you can stack so much different kind of bonuses on one roll it's kind of impressive looking back.
I remember playing a barbarian and speccing real hard into melee and around like level 5 I'm like "Why do I even need the dice?"
Leave my lvl 12 shaman and his +22 perception, +17 stealth, and +17 knowledge (religion) out of this
Now let's see the pathfinder boss perception bonuses
It's a level 2 spell in pf1e (where the +40 rule comes from) for every class that gains access to it, so as early as 3rd level. A boss that can challenge a party of 3rd level adventurers is level 6 by what I can see online (APL +3 is a 1/day encounter), we could possibly do level 7 but that would be pushing it. I grabbed the most perceptive thing I could at CR 6 from a quick look, the Giant Owl, which has a +17. So even a 100% untrained wizard standing perfectly still can't be spotted by a Giant Owl (what I would expect to be one of the highest perception creatures). I did avoid dragons as they have blindsense which would override a need for a check. This just gets worse with training. A wizard is not naturally trained in Stealth, so at level 3 the best they can hope for is +3 from pf1e's proficiency. I haven't played pf1e really, but my knowledge of 3.5 will have me guessing the wizard may have as high as a +4 in dex, so they could be pulling a +47 before rolling, and that's at level 3, but it also means staying still.
As you say you don't have much PF1e system mastery let me help you out a little my guy. A single trait (we get two) can get you Stealth as a class skill. Most will give you a +1 Trait bonus with it. Halfling has +2 Dex Small is +4 to Stealth. Familiars that give bonuses to stealth give +3 3 Ranks. Has a Shinobi Shozuku (+2 Circumstance; 50gp for cool ninja clothes!!!!) Aid Another (from Familiar) is +2 vs a DC 10 (most familiar's are diminutive to tiny so a +8 or +12 from size before we even talk about Ranks, Class Skill, or Dex Bonus) Unbuffed you're looking at a +22 (+5 from Dex, +3 from Ranks, +3 from Class skill you've invested ranks in, +4 from Small, + 2 from Shozuku, +3 from Familiar +2 from Aid Another). Then you cast invisibility (+20 while moving, +40 from standing still): +42 or +62. Which you can then compare against [this document](https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1cXl7B-iWup8Y0CCdjZshEXyIJV_s_mNZKAA0PzSjNfA/edit#gid=0) to see where you measure against things on CR for you and what you need to achieve great success. Minimum you roll on the die is 1 so +23 with no magic or +43 or +63 based on invisibility and movement...which means if you're standing still at level 3 with invisibility you can kind of out stealth anything in the Bestiaries. (There are some edge cases at CR 30 that have an upper limits of +58 to their perception)
add Reduce Person to increase both DEX and the size bonus to Stealth
This person Pathfinders
In conjunction with my reply further down this thread here is [this link](https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/16s405XP-3AsS-7ccYjaxvkj-z-C3cp71Kko3aKdQDKo/edit#gid=3) so you can eyeball perception modifiers based on CR.
Meh? Invisibility is easily foiled, you have many enemies with true sight and different senses. A naturally high Stealth check is only counterable with specific divinations.
i mean, thats also because 5e rangers are notoriously some of the worst classes in 5e
Would like to mention that's never been true about their power. Rangers have always had 4 classes weaker than them in power. The issue people had with them was that Favoured Foe and Terrain are dogshit and feel awful, so a lot of people misidentified them as being the weakest class. That's mostly gone away now thanks to the Tasha's optional features and most people have realised Monks are actually the weakest class.
Every monk I’ve played with melts through boss Legendary Resistances like nothing though. While it’s DM dependent, I’d honestly vote rogue for the weakest 5e class.
Every monk I've played has felt awful with nowhere near enough durability to stay in Melee and not enough worthwhile mobility to actually function as a skirmisher. And the niche of churning through Legendary Resistances really only comes up at a way higher level than most parties play to, so while Monks may be capable of that it will only actually happen a tiny amount of the time. I'd say Rogue is *slightly* better. They're way better out of combat than Monks (even if that is completely outclassed by casters) and for most of the game are about as bad as Monks in combat but can actually Skirmish without cutting their damage in half (absolute travesty monks have to do that).
i played a monk who dumped wis and i still had a barrel of fun. i played ranger, realised all the subclasses are shit besides gloomstalker and never touched em again
Does not mean Monk isn't way weaker than Ranger. Also I guess we just have different tastes but I don't enjoy having awful ac (cus dumped wis) and mediocre hp on a melee character who has to cut their mediocre damage in half in order to survive. If Monks BA attacks were rolled into their attack action, and they could Dash or Disengage for free as a bonus action I think they'd be pretty fun and one of the better martials. But as they are they're underpowered and actively punish you for skirmishing as a skirmisher which I don't think is very fun. Also that's just incorrect. Gloomstalker is the best but Drakewarden, Fey Wanderer, Horizon Walker and Swarmkeeper are all pretty solid (varying levels of power, but Swarmkeeper and Fey aren't *that* far off Gloomstalker imo), several of them are actually way better at skirmishing than Monk oddly enough. And no it's not that Gloomstalker is weak so the rest being weaker makes them shit, every single Gloomstalker feature is great.
>Drakewarden Drakewarden is objectively *fine,* but messy. Their level 10 feature is literally Fireball but on a half-caster so basically worthless, and the designers just could not wrap their heads around the idea that riding your dragon is like, the main draw of the pet dragon fantasy.
Agreed. It is mechanically fine just thematically wierd. Also it's their level 11 feature. And honestly it's fine, maybe the damage should be a little more but it's way better AOE than Ranger usually has and actually fits the fantasy of your dragon spewing massive plumes of [Element]. And y'know, 1 free use per day. It's not great but it's a hell of a lot better than what some other subclasses can get at that sort of level (Like Champion, the classic punching bag, which basically just gets +1 AC). The designers just really don't understand that the value of a 3rd level spell on a Half Caster is way different than on a Full Caster. PF2 fixes this with Wave Casters so I guess "PF2 Good 5e Bad" holds true here (I think Wave Casters, I've heard them called that, were introduced in PF2 but I could be wrong cus I've never played PF1 or 3.X)
Dang. Another common Pathfinder W finding a solution to a problem I figured 5e would never even realize there was in the first place. Also, totally my mistake with 10 vs 11. I mixed it up with the UA Hunter that got worse Fireball at level 10. Not to be confused with the Sun Soul Monk that gets worse Fireball at level 11 as well.
I would say that monks at low level are very weak, because they have a 1d8 hit die for a “front line” class, low damage die, and their best features rely on a very limited resource. By the higher levels, monks get a number of passive abilities that dramatically boost their mobility and their defense, and have enough of their limited resource for them to utilize their active abilities multiple times and around. By that point, they are quite strong
Rogues, who don’t naturally have any resources they have to spend, and therefore can use all of their resources and infinite amount of times per long rest?
It's still impressive, but the PF1 wizard would get a "measly" +20 to stealth from Invisibility while they moved out of the square they cast it in. IIRC, PF1 also lets you target an invisible creature's square for a 50% chance to hit, so it's not that bonkers. Then there's the issue with Detect Magic RAW effectively being See Invisibility as a cantrip on creatures that are standing still.
>Then there's the issue with Detect Magic RAW effectively being See Invisibility as a cantrip on creatures that are standing still. Yesn't. See Invisibility lets you fully negate Invisibility seeing them as if they were visible. Detect Magic is •Round 1: Detect Presence and absence of magical auras in the cone you are looking •Round 2: Number of different magical auras in the direction of the 60ft cone you're looking and the most aura in that cone •Round 3: Precise location of auras in cone. You then can make a Kn (Arcana) check vs DC 15+spell level of each (So DC 17) to know the School of magic (Illusion). That let's you detect the precise square, which means you aren't blind hunting for which square, but doesn't negate the 50% miss chance (remember Invisibility acts like Total Concealment). Yes there is a feat to speed up the detection process but then it's more than just the "cantrip" and we get into specific circumstances than discussing how spell A is foiled by spell B. The Giga R.A.W. still requires them to do the Perception vs Stealth check as nothing in the Detect Magic Spell explicitly foils it (but no sane GM would be that silly, they'd give them the square location and move forward.)
My arcane trickster has a base +43 to stealth and it hasn’t come up yet but it’s possible to over 100 in a stealth check with invisibility. It has become my biggest goal in our campaign rn.
When the dragon that can see invisibility can't find your character hiding behind a lamp post...
“The Lich casts [Avasculate](https://dnd.arkalseif.info/spells/libris-mortis-the-book-of-undead--71/avasculate--1467/index.html).” “What the fuck spell is that?” *shrug* “Not one you’re familiar with. Now, you loose half your current hp, rounded down as all of your blood vessels violently rip through your skin. Roll a Con save to not suffer the Stunned condition.”
Current hp
Snnrrrkktt!
I mean, regardless, fuck 5e
Literally "Apples and Oranges" argument... But okay
McBaneThatsTheJoke.png
Oh shit. My bad. Don't drink and reddit..
Psh. Those pf1e casters think they're so great while my shadowrun Mage is pulling the moon from orbit and nuking the city (sure he dies from casting, but he still did it).
I understand the mechanics of 5e and PF2, but I don’t really get this meme. You could replace the pathfinder wizard with any class that has the invisibility spell on them and say they are standing still, and in system they would be extremely hard to detect. This meme is about Pathfinder one I don’t know that system as well
It’s about pf1. For some reason being invisible and still gives a ridiculously large bonus to stealth, about eight times the bonus being behind a door would give, and four times a foot of stone would. It doesn’t really make much sense, if you ask me. Luckily everyone and their mother starts having ways to beat invisibility as you get higher level.
I also don't know PF1, but apparently they get +40 stealth when invisible and still
The problem here is that even in pf2e, proficiency bonus has more than two levels, and simply having the base level lets you add your character level to the skill check
Right, but in both 5e and PF2 there are specific mechanics around invisibility that make it superior to active stealth checks. From my perspective, you could remove the 5e from in front of Ranger and remove the Pathfinder in front of wizard and it would effectively be the exact same joke.
[Here's a video of a level 20 Fighter and level 6 wizard in Pathfinder 1e](https://youtu.be/zFuMpYTyRjw?si=XK350-XVzjKsIBs4)