Am I the only one who hates monks?

Is there a particular reason your monk uses a lower point buy than your ranger (18/16/14/7/14/7 /= 14/16/14/7/16/7 monk needs +2 somewhere for racial)?

You may want to recount. The monk ends up at 15 perfectly, and assumes the +2 in either Dex or Wisdom.

Also if your running a primarily melee damage based monk why not run the exact same statline as the ranger you lose 1 AC from the statline you had for a +2 to hit and damage and can use power attack yourself on the monk (I know a shocking idea for a melee damage dealer) to attack at +8/+8/+3 with 1d8 + 10 damage

If you run the same statline as the ranger, then you end up with an abyssmal AC for a frontline damage dealer. About 15 AC pre-dodge. That means your average CR 6 (what we were testing it against) hits you on a 2+. That's not very good when you've got less HP than other front-liners.

without using a ki point which is 45%/45%/20% with average damage of 14.5 per hit total dps is only 15.95 dpr which I believe is just a tad higher than the rangers 12.35, add in a Ki point use and your looking at 22.475 which matches the rangers hasted DPS (except you arent even using haste your just using your own class abilities).

Two problems here. They're not problems with your math, but problems with your experiment. I actually said during my post that the monk could exceed the Ranger's damage if we gave him an 18 Strength, but doing so his armor class suffers tremendously. Part of my point was that monks are terribly unbalanced. You have little more than potential for decent offense or decent defense, but you can't have both.

The second problem is that you're talking about adding a ki point. The problem with this is that you run out of ki points exceptionally fast. At 6th level with a 16 Wisdom you'd only have 6 per day. With your suggested array, you only have 5. You don't get to keep them if your attack misses, and you have to use them to fuel your AC booster and most of your other monk powers (such as dimension door). If you drop to less than 1 ki, your ki-strike turns off and you lose any DR-penetration you have naturally. I noted this in my breakdowns of the monk & ranger. It would matter if you can sustain it, but you can't.

Also monks AC at level 6 with the rangers statline can be 21 exactly the same as your ranger (+1 dodge + 3 dex + 2 wis +1 class + 4 mage armor) if you consider the obvious buffs that a level 6 monk would be asking for from his team.

I noted this as well. I pointed out that with mage armor the buff could catch up to the unbuffed ranger, but in doing so he has two options. Either drink potions like an addict (burning 50 gp every hour on the hour) or get wizard buddy to waste a 1st level spell on once every 8-CL hours, which could be put to better use (like magic missile vs enemy caster to disrupt, since magic missile is up to 3d4+3 at this level). You could buy a wand of mage armor, but it still brings you back to being reliant on classes you may not have, to compare to a class that is using no buffs and no class features (other than BAB).

Remember, the experiment was no a Monk vs Fighter w/ favorite weapon, nor monk vs Ranger w/ favored enemy. It was Monk w/ Flurry vs Ranger with random longsword he just picked up somewhere that the party mage used a long duration greater magic weapon spell on for both (technically favoring the monk here in considerations because he isn't expected to trade his left testicle for an amulet of mighty fists).

And again, this is a ranger who's not buffing his AC or to-hit modifiers or anything. At 6th level we could have a +1 armor and +1 shield for 2,000 gp total. That brings AC 2 points higher yet again (the monk can't use shields and mage armor and bracers don't stack). And we're not taking into account any of the ranger's class features beyond HD, BAB, and Proficiencies. We're basically ignoring that the ranger has an animal companion, ignoring the survivalist stuff, ignoring the spells (and he actually gets good spells like longstrider, entangle, resist energy, pass without trace, and those are just 1st level spells for him), or that he has more skill points.

In essence, for the monk to "keep up", he needs to be a drain on the party (milking spells off a class you may or may not have, who may or may not know the spell, who may or may not want to cast it on you), burn a highly limited resource (ki points), and so forth. And the monk doesn't have the option of simply dropping his AC by 2-3 points to nearly double his damage output, or change to a longspear or other reach weapon to deal with larger foes or punish/control a wider area.

And so on, and so forth. The ultimate point was, a 6th level monk has difficulty keeping up with a Ranger's AC in medium armor that he can begin play with at 1st level, while also keeping up with damage. If he specs damage to make himself look better next to the unbuffed generic longsword wielding guy, the his AC suffers badly. If he pushes AC more, his damage becomes the ace of useless.

TriOmegaZero wrote:

Hmm, my wife runs a cavalier and hasn't had a problem yet. But we are only 4th level.

I personally think the Cavalier is great, but the board seems to have reached a consensus that they are crippled anytime they need to go indoors.

Yet, very few Cavalier threads. And, I believe reflecting that lack of interest, only one Cavalier archtype in the race book.

Cavaliers are okay on foot. But when they dismount, they lose a ton of their abilities. In my Kingmaker game I lose about half of my damage that I would get if I mounted charge. I do have Spirited Charge, so that tips things further (I did it partly out of flavor and partly to see how much I would suffer if I was on foot).

And then Paizo made samurai, freeing the cavalier's mounted abilities for abilities that are good anytime.

I like the class a lot (order of the dragon especially), but it's abilities do not synergize. And fighting classes tend to suffer when they cannot focus on doing one thing really well (like the monk!)

I'm going to go write a monk archetype now.

Share when you finish.

@Michael Foster - Ask her to post a build, that always ends well...

On topic, you can build monks with much better AC than that..

I still maintain that the STAT lines are not equal and NEITHER is 15 points both characters are over the ranger by a significant amount the monk less so (Are you sure you actually play in 15 point buy campaigns?), read them again very very carefully the ranger has 1x 18 (7+ racial+1 level), 1x 16 (10), 2x14 (5 each), 2x7 (-4 each) (27-8=19 points) and the monk has 2x16 (7 + level and 5+racial), 2x14 (5 each), 2x7 (-4 each) (22-8 = 16 points), Please feel free to show me your working on those stats to show they are both 15 points, (I have as far as im aware been as generous as possible in the points reductions from both level and racial abilities).

Also the monks AC does not become useless it becomes 16 predodge (because the rangers statline gives +3 dex + 2 wis + 1 class), mage armor might be an issue till level 6 but then pearl of power (1) + extend rod is pretty much an all day mage armor for the monk.

You focus alot on the weaknesses of the monk (pure DPS while keeping a high AC) and alot less on their advantages, high CMD and high CMB (for a level 6 monk your looking at a +12 trip if you use the rangers statline), really good saves, plenty of useful archtypes that synergise with different goals.

Yes pure monks dont have the same DPR and AC as a frontliner but they can obtain either and are extremely solid contributers to any party if built with a goal in mind.

I still maintain that the STAT lines are not equal and NEITHER is 15 points both characters are over the ranger by a significant amount the monk less so (Are you sure you actually play in 15 point buy campaigns?), read them again very very carefully the ranger has 1x 18 (7+ racial+1 level), 1x 16 (10), 2x14 (5 each), 2x7 (-4 each) (27-8=19 points) and the monk has 2x16 (7 + level and 5+racial), 2x14 (5 each), 2x7 (-4 each) (22-8 = 16 points), Please feel free to show me your working on those stats to show they are both 15 points, (I have as far as im aware been as generous as possible in the points reductions from both level and racial abilities).

Firstly, I use a calculator. Secondly, yes. Str 16, Dex 14, Con 14, Int 7, Wis 13, Cha 7 is 15 points. +2 racial to Strength. Ranger gets +1 at 4th and I put it in Wisdom, giving 18, 14, 14, 7, 14, 7. The monk was trying to compete in AC and damage, so we're forced to emphasize Dex and Wisdom to survive at low levels (because 14 AC on a front liner shall not do); giving us 14, 16, 13, 7, 14, 7, +2 racial to Wisdom, bringing the total to 14, 16, 13, 7, 16, 7. +1 stat bonus went to Con at 4th because we need our HP to survive (we're already effectively -2 Con behind the Ranger due to HD).

Also the monks AC does not become useless it becomes 16 predodge (because the rangers statline gives +3 dex + 2 wis + 1 class), mage armor might be an issue till level 6 but then pearl of power (1) + extend rod is pretty much an all day mage armor for the monk.

Peal of Power: 1,000 gp

Again, the problem is obvious. You're pushing for 4,000 gp worth of magic items plus a caster-assistant to match a ranger who is using 100% mundane gear that he began with at 1st level for free. Also, the cost of the pearl and the rod is about 25% of your wealth value at 6th level. Just to match the guy who began his career at this AC. Then you'll need your +1 deflection (2,000 gp), +1 natural (2,000 gp), which brings you to 50% of your wealth.

The Ranger began play with these. They're mundane. If he upgraded, he could be sporting +1 armor (about 1,300 gp), +1 shield (1,155 gp), his +1 deflection (2,000 gp), +1 natural (2,000 gp), and still have 1,545 gp above that to spend on consumables and tools; and he doesn't require a specific party member to do his job.

You focus alot on the weaknesses of the monk (pure DPS while keeping a high AC) and alot less on their advantages, high CMD and high CMB (for a level 6 monk your looking at a +12 trip if you use the rangers statline), really good saves, plenty of useful archtypes that synergise with different goals.

I'm not sure where you're getting that they're so excellent at combat maneuvers. The only thing they have helping them with combat maneuvers above any other class is just that they pretend to have a full BAB. But here's a really fun fact...Warrior, Ranger, Paladin, Fighter, and Barbarian? Full BAB. No pretending needed.

So the ranger has the potential for the exact same combat maneuver bonuses (+6 BAB, +4 Str, +2 feat if desired) and have +12 as well. Only he does this +12 while having a better armor class, and being able to bury people with his attacks. While also being more useful to the party (more skills, more HP, more damage, more out of combat utility, etc) and gets a pet that is an extra meatshield (that humorously can threaten to trip on every attack if he goes with a wolf).

The only thing that is "really good saves" is his Will save. Ranger matches his Fortitude and Reflex. Monk saves are overrated. Want good saves? Paladins are the best. Monks have a 10% better chance to save at 1st level, and a 30% better chance to save at 20th level, all things being equal. Admittedly monk 2 / ranger 18 would look pretty sexy.

Also, I don't really care about archtypes. The "good archtypes" barely look like monks anymore (zen archer, sohei). We're talking about the monk. Just the monk. I'm not talking about archtypes yet. You can't be all those archtypes. Those archtypes are what you play when you don't want to be a monk. You're not a monk, you're a zen archer. You're not a monk, you're a sohei. And so forth. They share similar abilities but what they are actually capable of doing is on levels of entirely new classes (but then due to recent "clarifications" neither sohei nor zen archer is even playable).

Yes pure monks dont have the same DPR and AC as a frontliner but they can obtain either and are extremely solid contributers to any party if built with a goal in mind.

And what goal is that, exactly? You have a front liner who is neither great at damage nor great at defense, and cannot pull decent at both at the same time, has no party support abilities, by your own demands must be buffed to even look like he's a real adventurer, aren't any better at combat maneuvers than anyone else, isn't a skill monkey, and lacks any sort of party supporting capability.

That pretty much sums it up, I think. For the record, I noted - twice - that the monk could beat the Ranger in DPR if he pumped Strength to 18; with the caveat that doing so means his AC suffers really badly. On a side note, if you plan to play a monk, you are going to want blind fight because you cannot suffer to have your AC drop because you can't see. It's a good feat for everyone, but a critical feat for a monk who wants to see 20th.

Stuff...

Ranger: 18, 16, 14, 7, 14, 7. (+1 Wis at 4th)

Monk: 14, 16, 14, 7, 16, 7. (+1 Con at 4th)

You'll notice the Ranger and Monk have exactly the same stats, just in different places, except the Ranger has an 18. Using your own calculator you posted, the Ranger is built with a 20 point buy, while the Monk is built with a 15 point buy.

Also, I'm not sure if it was your intention, but your most recent post came off a little.. ranty? Not sure, but it seemed angry. I'm on your side, the Monk is broken, but I, personally, have decided to stop commenting on the subject of these threads, and simply interjecting every once in awhile when I notice something. Such as now. I do, however, read them for the lulz to see people try and argue the Monk isn't broken, but disregard the fact they're probably playing with an underwhelming GM, or a GM that houserules in the Monk's favor a lot.

Now that I see the ranger has only a 14 dex I can see your point about the AC loss a little better (plus im happy that both characters are now at the same point buy)

I will admit a pure monk is not the ideal for unarmed damage with good AC, if you want that your better off with monk2/fighterX, Which is of course why I mentioned the archtypes that make monks better at other parts of combat than pure DPR, Generally as a monk you will want to trip to get the +4 to hit and then unload on people while they are prone, or run Tetori to grapple with the full grapple chain, or one of a number of other ways you can shine in combat without actually having to just stand there unloading on people.

I actually agree that monks give up too much for what they gain (giving up the ability to use armor and shields at all for a wis mod + level boost that scales alot slower than a mithril chain shirt), but that doesnt mean that monks are useless, merely that the system mechanics dont support them being frontline DPR with high AC's, and if the mechanics dont support it why would you build your character that way.

Also technically Ash its only 1k for the pearl and 1/3rd of the rod cost (another 1k) as you would only pay for the rod usage that you plan to use daily and the mage would use the other 2 uses for his self buffs. Its not a perfect solution, most other solutions require multiclassing (as ninjas/rogues can get mage armor as a SLA but monks cant) which would technically invalidate your comparision as you were comparing monk (which trades off AC for damage or damage for AC) vs ranger (who as a armor wielding character spends all his feats on damage and gets decent AC anyway). Its the difference in the mechanics of armored vs unarmored characters as the unarmored ones have to put in alot of effort to get back to par with an armored one, who doesnt have to try as hard to be good at both.

I will end though by saying in my opinion monk is a "trap" class, in which new players think they can become like Bruce Lee and beat everyone down with their fists, before getting a rude awakening that unarmed damage dealing is better done by other classes.

I love monks. After 20 years at the gaming table I get bored with contemporary Western fantasy pretty easily. Having an Eastern mythology flavored alternative, especially one as well fleshed out as the setting in the Pathfinder, is a godsend. I liked the Samurai and Ninja classes too. Still though, they could use some love in the game mechanics department. There is no good reason why a 5th level fighter should use Monk weapons better than the Monk, none. Sorry Pathfinder staff, you have have been over-ruled by the most all-knowingest of all-knowing GMs, me.

I'm brand spanking new to these forums so I'm not sure how people have come to believe Monks are not combat effective. I dunno about your builds but I have had no problem whatsoever finding my niche in any group I've played one in. It isn't the Barbarian, Fighter or Paladin that deals with the rust monster in hand to hand combat. It ain't gonna be the Fighter or Barbarian that makes his Will Save against a hold person spell either. "Nice DPS/DPR machine you got there guy, too bad you're doing no DPS/DPR at all for the next 6 rounds cuz Wisdom was your drop stat." LOL.

Paladins have good saves, they don't get tooled by the Will save as bad as the fighter or barbarian does but they have to be lawful good or chaotic evil which are, in my opinion, the two most ruthlessly BORING alignments to play. Example of play:

>GM: "What do you do with your day paladin?"
>Player:"Oh, well I guess I just sit around communing with my deity and patronize the other PCs for their non-lawful good ways."
>GM: "Roll a perception check."
>Player: *rolls a natural 20!*
>GM: "You notice everyone in your party has mysteriously not invited you along for the next adventure."

OR

>GM: "What do you do with your day anti-paladin?"
>Player: "Kill everyone I see."
>GM:"You're in a forest, you see no one."
>Player: "I kill the forest."
>GM:"..."

Ashiel wrote:

Stuff...

Ashiel, while I normally fervently enjoy your posts, and they almost always make me giggle when someone tries to argue with you

Well thank you very much.

, I'm afraid you did make a mistake. When you posted your Monk vs Ranger calculations, you used the stats:

Ashiel wrote:

Ranger: 18, 16, 14, 7, 14, 7. (+1 Wis at 4th)

Monk: 14, 16, 14, 7, 16, 7. (+1 Con at 4th)

You'll notice the Ranger and Monk have exactly the same stats, just in different places, except the Ranger has an 18. Using your own calculator you posted, the Ranger is built with a 20 point buy, while the Monk is built with a 15 point buy.

My bad. The Ranger's Dex is supposed to be 14, not 16. However, it doesn't pollute the math because anyone who reads the post will find that whenever I call on the Ranger's Dex, I use a +2 (the correct modifier for the 14 Dex he's supposed to have). Sorry about the typo.

Also, I'm not sure if it was your intention, but your most recent post came off a little.. ranty? Not sure, but it seemed angry. I'm on your side, the Monk is broken, but I, personally, have decided to stop commenting on the subject of these threads, and simply interjecting every once in awhile when I notice something. Such as now.

Sorry if I came off a bit ranty. It's just been a long day, and when people are arguing a post and saying things I already addressed specifically, and having to repeat myself, begins to wear on me after a while. For example, the very first thing I said concerning this was...

Agreed actually. I have no problem with monks wearing some armor. One of their biggest problems is they lack non-melee capabilities, but can't keep up with hit/damage/AC of other martials who get more tricks in a standard game. In a 40+ point buy it's not so bad, but my group plays standard 15 PB; and I've shown before how a ranger with a longsword and shield can out damage a monk while having a higher AC, using nothing more than power attack. If the two are hasted, it's not even a contest.

Math followed.

During the math, I included notes such as...

So assuming the monk is specking AC, he still ends up with AC lower than the ranger (who can afford chainmail + heavy shield at 1st level), and that's assuming we spent a bonus feat on dodge. If the monk tries to push damage, he can beat the ranger if he gets an 18 Str (resulting in an abysmal AC), but then the Ranger pulls ahead again if the pair are hasted. Meanwhile, the Ranger has the option to drop his completely mundane shield (notice that the ranger has no magic gear here boosting his AC) and drop to 19 AC (still higher than the monk's) and draw a 2 hander like a greatsword and make his melee damage skyrocket like so...

^ is me specifically noting that the monk who specs Strength prime can out damage the completely un-specialized competitor, but that doing so costs him AC heavily (and it does).

So then I noted...

So with the monk pushing AC like a drug dealer, he can't keep up with the Ranger wearing a piece of armor he gets with his starting gear. Toss on +natural (which the ranger can give himself) and +deflection and the gap doesn't close. The only way to catch the monk up is via mage armor. Which the monk cannot reliably sustain on his own without being a drain on the party (either he's chugging potions like an addict for mage armor or wasting the wizard's spells that could be better used to disrupt enemy mages, since his magic missile is up to 3d4+3 at this level).

^ is me noting that the only way for the Monk to compare in AC is via mage armor. That's not me ignoring it. That's me strait out saying it. And I said why I think it's bogus (the ranger isn't begging for buffs like a beggar child on the streets of Korvosa, that's for sure).

And when someone comes up and says...
1. Hey, listen your math is wrong because the Ranger has more stats.
2. You're not being fair, because the monk could deal more damage if he pumped strength.
3. You could have mage armor!

Well, that does make me facepalm a bit. The first one I'll excuse. It was a typo, and I guess if you weren't paying that much attention to the math (but if you're going to argue, why the hell wouldn't you?), so I'll call this one my fault. But the second two? Pure head shake material right there. I already addressed both and why you suffer if you go down those paths, or the problems therein.

And I noted several times that this is monk trying hard vs a guy with a sword. Not a guy with a special sword. Not a guy whose buffed up. He's not even using his ranger spell lead blades (lead blades brings his 1d8 longsword to 2d6, and his 2d6 greatsword to 3d6 damage, and if we want to talk about what relying on other PCs to function includes then we'll take enlarge person instead, thanks, because that will turn us into an engine of terrible destruction with 3d6 longswords and 4d6 greatswords). So we can keep pushing the envelope, but we're already talking about buffing the monk to keep up with the ranger without buffs. Exactly how much more do we need here again?

Then there was this joke of an argument about monks being for combat maneuvers like it was a class feature or something. Anyone who wants to take a moment to count 1 + 2 + 3 could probably figure out that the Monk's combat maneuvers aren't actually any higher than any other full martial class. The NPC warrior class (those guys who are considered to be worth about 1/2 a class level) can match them. Barbarians make monks cry when it comes to mobile combat maneuvers.

I mean barbarians be all like "Hah, I'm made of muscle and I love to wrestle, and I move fast and my speed actually stacks with haste", and then all of a sudden they're like "RAAAAAAAAAAGHHHHHH!!" and then they jump like 30 feet onto something twice their size, grabbing them with their teeth and throwing them to the ground in some sort of super angry enraged judo death throw, tearing them apart with their bear hands and 22 strength modifier, dealing unarmed damage, dealing axe damage, claw damage, bite damage, dignity and shame damage. And while this is happening, the monk is standing in the corner, knees shaking, putting on red lipstick and mascara, wearing women's underwear as he struggles with a crisis of identity as he stares confused at the oiled up body builder that oozes testosterone and win from every orifice of his body and bathed in the sweet pheromones of his dead enemies' blood, sweat, and tears.

The barbarian pats the monk on the shoulder. "Good game dude. Oh, I think you spilled your drink." he says to the monk as he goes by. The monk begins to cry, because he didn't spill his drink. He begins to cry because he knows he will never be able to compare to that. Knowing that will have to continue dressing as the Barbarian during his special alone time, so he can pet and caress an effigy of himself that is eerily similar to a voodoo doll, while whispering sweet nothings like "it's okay monk, everyone knows you're really better at combat maneuvers than that big, bulging, oiled, hot, sexy shoeless god of war. Now, let's speak no more of this, because I have an oil of grease in my bad pocket and my hands are full".

I do, however, read them for the lulz to see people try and argue the Monk isn't broken, but disregard the fact they're probably playing with an underwhelming GM, or a GM that houserules in the Monk's favor a lot.

Agreed. Also, as a fair warning, my post may come off as a bit satirically sarcastic in an overly smartass sort of way. Do not be alarmed. While some monks may feel great shame, squirm in their seats in ways that make them feel uncomfortably comfortable, it is all in good fun and is just a result of a long day combined with a short fuse being channeled into humor rather than rage. :3

I mean barbarians be all like "Hah, I'm made of muscle and I love to wrestle, and I move fast and my speed actually stacks with haste", and then all of a sudden they're like "RAAAAAAAAAAGHHHHHH!!" and then they jump like 30 feet onto something twice their size, grabbing them with their teeth and throwing them to the ground in some sort of super angry enraged judo death throw, tearing them apart with their bear hands and 22 strength modifier, dealing unarmed damage, dealing axe damage, claw damage, bite damage, dignity and shame damage. And while this is happening, the monk is standing in the corner, knees shaking, putting on red lipstick and mascara, wearing women's underwear as he struggles with a crisis of identity as he stares confused at the oiled up body builder that oozes testosterone and win from every orifice of his body and bathed in the sweet pheromones of his dead enemies' blood, sweat, and tears.

The barbarian pats the monk on the shoulder. "Good game dude. Oh, I think you spilled your drink." he says to the monk as he goes by. The monk begins to cry, because he didn't spill his drink. He begins to cry because he knows he will never be able to compare to that. Knowing that will have to continue dressing as the Barbarian during his special alone time, so he can pet and caress an effigy of himself that is eerily similar to a voodoo doll, while whispering sweet nothings like "it's okay monk, everyone knows you're really better at combat maneuvers than that big, bulging, oiled, hot, sexy shoeless god of war. Now, let's speak no more of this, because I have an oil of grease in my bad pocket and my hands are full".

This is just.. absolutely beautiful! I most definitely giggled at this.

I totally see where your frustration is coming from. I lurk in a lot of threads, and it seems you're a master at tweaking someones nerves because they are unwilling to use something that is spelled out in the rules (such as Paladin and Ranger potions). Every time I see your post in a thread, inevitably, someone takes up arms to complaining you're a min-maxer, power gamer, or munchkinizer. Then they totally disregard your well thought out and reasonable responses, on the basis of being a min-maxer, power gamer or munchkinizer. If I see a post of yours in a thread, I mentally rub my hands together and pity the next fool who tries to argue with you.

Of course, you've also got your friendly stalker that loves to follow you into threads and use his Antagonize feat. I noticed his half-assed comment up above, glad to see you seem to be just ignoring him now. :P

This is just.. absolutely beautiful! I most definitely giggled at this.

I totally see where your frustration is coming from. I lurk in a lot of threads, and it seems you're a master at tweaking someones nerves because they are unwilling to use something that is spelled out in the rules (such as Paladin and Ranger potions). Every time I see your post in a thread, inevitably, someone takes up arms to complaining you're a min-maxer, power gamer, or munchkinizer. Then they totally disregard your well thought out and reasonable responses, on the basis of being a min-maxer, power gamer or munchkinizer. If I see a post of yours in a thread, I mentally rub my hands together and pity the next fool who tries to argue with you.

Tells casts enlarge ego on Ashiel

Of course, you've also got your friendly stalker that loves to follow you into threads and use his Antagonize feat. I noticed his half-assed comment up above, glad to see you seem to be just ignoring him now. :P

>:3

I wonder if it's love or lust. :P

wraithstrike wrote:

Lokie wrote:

Let me ask everyone this... Is there now enough content out that at least helps "patch" the Monk via Archtypes, feats, etc.. to agree that the Monk is at least playable in a "standard" i.e. non-hardcore/optimized game? (Such as the majority of games I've played in.)

Not if you want to use unarmed strikes. If you want to use weapons then I would say yes. I am not saying no other method works, but you better know the system, and bring your A game which is my #1 complaint.

Even with the Martial Artist archtype and accompanying ability to ignore all dr?

I just looked that up, and I saw no ability to ignore all DR. Do you have a quote for that?

They can ignore the hardness of an object, but hardness is not DR.

Since Ashiel is kicking butt and taking names I will just sit on the sidelines with Tels. :)

Small cavaliers are awesome. The gnome cavalier in my kingmaker game was dealing about 90 points of damage per round at 8th level.

Lokie wrote:

wraithstrike wrote:

Lokie wrote:

Let me ask everyone this... Is there now enough content out that at least helps "patch" the Monk via Archtypes, feats, etc.. to agree that the Monk is at least playable in a "standard" i.e. non-hardcore/optimized game? (Such as the majority of games I've played in.)

Not if you want to use unarmed strikes. If you want to use weapons then I would say yes. I am not saying no other method works, but you better know the system, and bring your A game which is my #1 complaint.

Even with the Martial Artist archtype and accompanying ability to ignore all dr?

I just looked that up, and I saw no ability to ignore all DR. Do you have a quote for that?

They can ignore the hardness of an object, but hardness is not DR.

"Exploit Weakness (Ex): ... If the check succeeds, the martial artist gains a +2 bonus on attack rolls until the end of his turn, and any attacks he makes until the end of his turn ignore the creature or object’s DR or hardness."

Lokie wrote:

wraithstrike wrote:

Lokie wrote:

Let me ask everyone this... Is there now enough content out that at least helps "patch" the Monk via Archtypes, feats, etc.. to agree that the Monk is at least playable in a "standard" i.e. non-hardcore/optimized game? (Such as the majority of games I've played in.)

Not if you want to use unarmed strikes. If you want to use weapons then I would say yes. I am not saying no other method works, but you better know the system, and bring your A game which is my #1 complaint.

Even with the Martial Artist archtype and accompanying ability to ignore all dr?

I just looked that up, and I saw no ability to ignore all DR. Do you have a quote for that?

They can ignore the hardness of an object, but hardness is not DR.

Here you go Lord Wraithstrike :P

At 4th level, as a swift action, a martial artist can observe a creature or object to find its weak point by making a Wisdom check and adding his monk level against a DC of 10 + the object’s hardness or the target’s CR. If the check succeeds, the martial artist gains a +2 bonus on attack rolls until the end of his turn, and any attacks he makes until the end of his turn ignore the creature or object’s DR or hardness. A martial artist may instead use this ability as a swift action to analyze the movements and expressions of one creature within 30 feet, granting a bonus on Sense Motive checks and Reflex saves and a dodge bonus to AC against that opponent equal to 1/2 his monk level until the start of his next turn.

[Edit]'Tis Ninja'd! Uuugh!!

wraithstrike wrote:

Lokie wrote:

Let me ask everyone this... Is there now enough content out that at least helps "patch" the Monk via Archtypes, feats, etc.. to agree that the Monk is at least playable in a "standard" i.e. non-hardcore/optimized game? (Such as the majority of games I've played in.)

Not if you want to use unarmed strikes. If you want to use weapons then I would say yes. I am not saying no other method works, but you better know the system, and bring your A game which is my #1 complaint.

Even with the Martial Artist archtype and accompanying ability to ignore all dr?

This is why I am heavily pushing having a way for a monk to enchant his body, as a large part of the concept of the class is making your body into a weapon.

If it was alongside the progression for unarmed strike becoming magic with a cost equal to a double weapon it would solve the DR and ability to hit issues.

Comparing it to other melee classes on a DPR basis ignores both stunning fist and monk saves, immunity, ki points, and bonus feats.

The monk is very playable, there is no aquaman issue if built and played for mobility and strategy. But the amulet of mighty fists isn't an equal trade off considering the slot sacrifice and cost.

wraithstrike wrote:

Lokie wrote:

wraithstrike wrote:

Lokie wrote:

Let me ask everyone this... Is there now enough content out that at least helps "patch" the Monk via Archtypes, feats, etc.. to agree that the Monk is at least playable in a "standard" i.e. non-hardcore/optimized game? (Such as the majority of games I've played in.)

Not if you want to use unarmed strikes. If you want to use weapons then I would say yes. I am not saying no other method works, but you better know the system, and bring your A game which is my #1 complaint.

Even with the Martial Artist archtype and accompanying ability to ignore all dr?

I just looked that up, and I saw no ability to ignore all DR. Do you have a quote for that?

They can ignore the hardness of an object, but hardness is not DR.

"Exploit Weakness (Ex): ... If the check succeeds, the martial artist gains a +2 bonus on attack rolls until the end of his turn, and any attacks he makes until the end of his turn ignore the creature or object’s DR or hardness."

I guess the martial artist gets a pass then. I hate failing perception checks. I looked for that like 3 times. I guess I failed because I typed "damage reduction" in my search bar instead of "DR".

edit:The monk still can't enhance his unarmed strike so no, he does not get a pass without weapons.

Monks have two really big problems

1) The eastern classes and archetypes (and not even all of them, just the monk and ninja) are the only ki/chi users. It's a sort of magic that's not like other magic because I guess epicanthic folds have a profound effect on mystical energies? The more distinct kinds of magic you have the more your metaphysics strain credulity.

2) As Ashiel says, the Barbarian does it better. You want nonstandard Ex and Su abilities on a martial class with good mobility, limited armor, and good combat maneuvers, and even something that functions as a sort of martial trance state and you choose barbarian. Barbarians share the first problem with Su rage making them yet another class that uses nonstandard magic while having absolutely no magical aptitude otherwise, but once you decide you want that baggage for some unaccountable reason they blow monks out of the water by every standard except ability to take Lawful alignments.

This will sound strange.
The monk gets more feats than the Barb.

This is an issue with Ashiel's "oiled god of war" example above. The Tetori could do something similar with the added benefit of CON damage.

Now for general damage, the barb wins- always. But monks that focus on damage are mascara wearing, voodoo fetish petting, tear squirting sissies. That's the problem, vanilla monks, and a need to damage rather than debuff opponents. The archetypes alter the class in sometimes radical ways.

This will sound strange.

The monk gets more feats than the Barb.

This is an issue with Ashiel's "oiled god of war" example above. The Tetori could do something similar with the added benefit of CON damage.

Now for general damage, the barb wins- always. But monks that focus on damage are mascara wearing, voodoo fetish petting, tear squirting sissies. That's the problem, vanilla monks, and a need to damage rather than debuff opponents. The archetypes alter the class in sometimes radical ways.

Who's talking general damage? The fact that the barbarian crushes monks handily in damage is actually not even being addressed. I mean sure, the barbarian could pounce on the enemy, making 4-5 attacks with a battleaxe, a claw attack, and a bite attack, then get a free AoO-less grapple attempt with an insane grapple bonus, then automatically deal unarmed strike damage (as part of the grapple), and yes it would deal a lot of damage. But damage isn't really the point.

The point is he can do it while sporting a surprisingly good AC, great saving throws, and he's more mobile (being able to benefit from haste is a big deal for many levels). He also has a better combat maneuver bonus due to his muscles that make the lovechild of Vin and Arnold look like a pansy, and that's without even investing in the feats. But if he does invest in a feat, lookout. Old boy can get up to a +20 stacks with everything bonus to his combat maneuvers every time he rages, and rage-cycling his his friend and comes built into the class (or comes early with an oracle-dip). The barbarian also has amazing debuff/crowd control power due to Terrifying Howl forcing a very high Will save vs panicking everything around him for 1d4+1 rounds (panick = suck, by the way).

Monks? Well they can get a bonus feat that gives them the entry level of a combat maneuver. But they can't get the higher version without spending their own feats on it, and they have to qualify for it, which adds horribly to monk MAD. I mean, you're only going to specialize in 1 maneuver and it's likely grappling ('cause god knows tripping and disarming do not come easy to monks since they need a 13 Int to perfect them). The sad part is the barbarian is still better at the maneuvers than the monk who's fully specialized, and amusingly wants them to take an AoO vs the barbarian because then he gets to pound their face (or even disarm them in reaction to their reaction, wooo!)!

You got stunning fist. Limited to 1/level, 1/round, and you lose it if you miss. That's great if you're speccing both Strength AND Wisdom (because you need Str for +hit, and wisdom for +DC). Unless you want to burn more feats to suck more (Weapon Finesse = traptastic). Unfortunately you're also targeting the saving throw that statistically is likely to be their highest (out of the core rulebook, barbarians, monks, paladins, rangers, cleric, druids, fighters, and animal companions have good Fort saves; and out of the bestiary it's the most common and generally highest save around). And like I said, if you miss, it's entirely wasted. Hard getting those DCs up very high when you're so multi-ability dependent just to try to survive. That's also ignoring the fact that a large quantity of enemies are just flat out immune to it. EDIT: Also, I just found this bit of commentary from another poster on the board that sums it up pretty well I think.

As for stunning, give me a break. I have a 7th level monk (20 Dex, 18 Wis, Weapon Finesse) who has thus far in his career from 1st level delivered a successful stunning fist precisely once - and that was at 5th level on a 1st level warrior. Stunning fist does not work if the target saves, and cannot work if you do not hit with it.

The irony is...stunning fist isn't even monk only. If anyone, even the party's wizard wanted it, they can take it. Monks just get it early and get to use it more. But it doesn't by any means make up for their sad, sad excuse for a class.

But back to the barbarian for a moment. Now, unlike the monk, when the Barbarian finds he can't grapple someone while beating them to death (say they have freedom of movement), and can't crowd-control someone while beating them to death (say they're immune to fear as well), he can still fall back to beating them to death as a viable tactic. And he'll likely do this while tanking surprisingly well (a barbarian can reach a 33 AC while raging without using a shield or timed buffs, while also having about 300 HP).

Also, Body Bludgeoning is hilarious and allows the Barbarian to not only take an enemy out of the battle but then beat other enemies to death with that enemy. Eater of Magic is amusing too. And you want to talk about anti-caster? SPELL SUNDER MODAR FOKAR! Once you can Rage Cycle, you can easily dispel a buff per round (since you get your stupidly high CMB plus your level vs 15 + CL of the effect or CMD+15 for spells on creatures). At 20th level, a barbarian can easily roll a +55 CMB or higher with only his rage and a +5 weapon, and that's assuming he began with a low-ish Strength modifier.

So what have we learned? The entirety of the monk class is apparently validated by A) combat maneuvers they suck at, and B) a single class ability that a grossly large amount of enemies are resistant or immune to that is also limited in usage and requires a successful non-touch attack, and a failed saving throw, or the effect is completely wasted.

God, how could I have ever not thought monks were amazing. It's like I discovered religion for the first time!

Mr. T pities the Fool that argues with Ashiel. :)

Trying to compare a Monk to any class other than a non-sneak attacking Rogue, or a Cleric in an anti-magic field, is probably a bad idea. Especially the Barbarian. If you've been around the Forum for a little while, you've probably heard of AM BARBARIAN. Arguably one of the most destructive forces ever conceived in Pathfinder (despite the RAGELANCEPOUNCE nerf).

No one's ever heard of AM MONK though.

Let me ask everyone this... Is there now enough content out that at least helps "patch" the Monk via Archtypes, feats, etc.. to agree that the Monk is at least playable in a "standard" i.e. non-hardcore/optimized game? (Such as the majority of games I've played in.)

Plus side:

Minus side:
They require yet more system mastery form the monk player (which is at odds with the 'non-hardcore/optimized game' proviso above).
They do not address the classes' fundamental issues in any way shape or form.
They only provide more options on which to expend the same resources (general feat slots) rather than provide extra resources.

So on the whole, I would have to answer a 'no' to that question.

This is why I am heavily pushing having a way for a monk to enchant his body, as a large part of the concept of the class is making your body into a weapon.

If it was alongside the progression for unarmed strike becoming magic with a cost equal to a double weapon it would solve the DR and ability to hit issues.

Agreed. The only differences between your approach and mine, Ciretose, is that I would see the monk as having a 'natural' enhancement bonus to hit from ki-strike, while you would (if I read you correctly) have them find a wizard, pay the gold and have their body enchanted.

Comparing it to other melee classes on a DPR basis ignores both stunning fist and monk saves, immunity, ki points, and bonus feats.

Actually, these are peripheral. They are a combat class that cannot hit, so stunning fist does not matter (no hits = no stuns). Saves, immunities, these things mean nothing when it comes down to actually doing something to the enemy, which unfortunately is what it's all about. The rest is there to keep you alive long enough to do something to the other guy - if you can't do that, he wins.

The monk is very playable, there is no aquaman issue if built and played for mobility and strategy. But the amulet of mighty fists isn't an equal trade off considering the slot sacrifice and cost.

The monk is playable if you know what you are doing, it just takes a lot of system knowledge and a head for strategy, and you have to accept that in some circumstances you are going to be a spare tyre. Not everyone has it, though, and that makes the monk a 'newb trap'.

That's the problem, vanilla monks, and a need to damage rather than debuff opponents.

Problem is you cannot debuff an opponent to death. Look at the other combat classes, and what have they all got in common? That's right - a means of hitting and damaging their enemy. The monk doesn't have to be the best at hitting/damaging, but it needs to be on the same playing field.

Edit: Thank you for the quote, Ashiel! If anyone wants to know, my monk's stats are...

Feriah's greatest successes have come from grappling, not hitting. She's functioning as the party trapspringer and scout, which will keep her useful, thanks to some awesome stat rolls. Other party members are a half-elf Oracle of Desna (healer, buffer, missile support), a magus (arcane caster, stabbity death), and a sword & Board paladin (smitey death).

By the time the Barbarian gets pounce (assuming they B-lined for it, giving up all of the requisite rage powers( the monk has abundant step, which with a few feats is actually better than pounce. If anyone would like to post a Barbarian build at a set level, I will post a Monk build for comparison. I'll even go first if you pick a level to avoid the Schrodinger's monk.

@ Dabbler - I generally agree, but I would disagree about discounting stunning fist. I view stunning fist kind of like a crit. It doesn't always happen, but when it does it is a big deal and if you hit, either way you are still doing damage.

I think a lot of the criticism of monks comes from people who never played the class and don't realize how many small options they get that really pay off in little ways throughout the game.

Like the inquisitor, it plays better than it reads if you have some system mastery.

Increasing attack bonus (even if not damage bonus) would fix pretty much everything I want in the class, with the variances I would want being able to be addressed through archetypes.

Edit: @Dabbler - Actually I would prefer the monk be able to do it themselves for a ritual with the same cost as item enchantment, perhaps with a monk feat. Fits flavor and fixes the problem.

This is why I am heavily pushing having a way for a monk to enchant his body, as a large part of the concept of the class is making your body into a weapon.

This is why I had the idea to dip into a class with arcane bond, have masterwork transformation cast on my fist and then use my fist as a bonded weapon, giving me the ability to enhance it as if I had craft arms and armor.

But the community wasn't very happy with the idea. ;)

ciretose wrote:

This is why I am heavily pushing havings a way for a monk to enchant his body, as a large part of the concept of the class is making your body into a weapon.

This is why I had the idea to dip into a class with arcane bond, have masterwork transformation cast on my fist and then use my fist as a bonded weapon, giving me the ability to enhance it as if I had craft arms and armor.

But the community wasn't very happy with the idea. ;)

I think the reason brass knuckles were nerfed was flavor. Making a monk have to wear breads knuckles is counter intuitive. If you instead make the monks hands masterwork at the same level they become magical it fits flavor and the issue. Forcing a dip class is even worse for flavor so I don't see it.

Playing by the rules, what a concept!

That's why a lot of people have issues with monks, because they either don't follow them or follow them incorrectly. That leads to skewed results.

Following the rules, monks have to work really hard just to keep up. I never want a monk in a party. Assuming we use the classic party combo, I rather have a bard as the 4th man over a monk or a rogue. As a 5th man, I rather have an archer, a 2nd heavy fighting type, a skirmisher type (scout rogues or rangers), 2nd divine/arcane casters.

Some of the monk archetypes are very good. But then that highlights the issues of the Core monk by swapping out those weaker features for good and useful features.

@ Dabbler - I generally agree, but I would disagree about discounting stunning fist. I view stunning fist kind of like a crit. It doesn't always happen, but when it does it is a big deal and if you hit, either way you are still doing damage.

That's kind of my point - it's gravy when it happens, but it cannot be relied upon. But if it's the gravy, where the hell is the meal? Now a fighter's +10 to damage, that you can rely on and it's the beef there all on it's own.

I think a lot of the criticism of monks comes from people who never played the class and don't realize how many small options they get that really pay off in little ways throughout the game.

Like the inquisitor, it plays better than it reads if you have some system mastery.

Not in my case.

Increasing attack bonus (even if not damage bonus) would fix pretty much everything I want in the class, with the variances I would want being able to be addressed through archetypes.

Yes, this is why a lot of alternate builds have either full BAB or something like weapon training to improve accuracy.

Edit: @Dabbler - Actually I would prefer the monk be able to do it themselves for a ritual with the same cost as item enchantment, perhaps with a monk feat. Fits flavor and fixes the problem.

That works for me. Of course it is resource-dependent, which can be a pain. Brass knuckles were removed from enhancing unarmed strikes because they made the AoMF redundant, and unfortunately they may regard this the same way. One of my fix suggestions was an item or ability to give the monk a flat enhancement bonus to hit only, and that can be tied with the AoMF to provide weapon properties.

When I did my re-design, I dropped scaling damage on unarmed strike completely and made it a flat 1d6 with fighter-like weapon training and automatic enhancement to hit and damage to +5 - again, the AoMF remains in play to provide properties.

The issue is that the developers seem to have decided that AoMF is the ONLY way that you get to enhance monk damage. When you ask for or try to create something else it seems to escalate quickly into a shouting match(on both sides). Actually the current nerf/retcon/the way it has always been debuff on the monk class actually came from a thread where people were asking for something to buff monks instead of the Amulet and then both sides got rude and then they either realized that most people(including their own Ap's) were playing it wrong or nerfed the monk depending on who you believe.

A friend has made a monk to throw in the next game. A defensive monk with a low DPR too, I wonder what the party will think?

Will get back to you on that.

Chengar Qordath wrote:

wraithstrike wrote:

Lokie wrote:

wraithstrike wrote:

Lokie wrote:

Let me ask everyone this... Is there now enough content out that at least helps "patch" the Monk via Archtypes, feats, etc.. to agree that the Monk is at least playable in a "standard" i.e. non-hardcore/optimized game? (Such as the majority of games I've played in.)

Not if you want to use unarmed strikes. If you want to use weapons then I would say yes. I am not saying no other method works, but you better know the system, and bring your A game which is my #1 complaint.

Even with the Martial Artist archtype and accompanying ability to ignore all dr?

I just looked that up, and I saw no ability to ignore all DR. Do you have a quote for that?

They can ignore the hardness of an object, but hardness is not DR.

"Exploit Weakness (Ex): ... If the check succeeds, the martial artist gains a +2 bonus on attack rolls until the end of his turn, and any attacks he makes until the end of his turn ignore the creature or object’s DR or hardness."

I guess the martial artist gets a pass then. I hate failing perception checks. I looked for that like 3 times. I guess I failed because I typed "damage reduction" in my search bar instead of "DR".

edit:The monk still can't enhance his unarmed strike so no, he does not get a pass without weapons.

Thanks to all who pointed to the source for me. Away from the boards for awhile yesterday (my birthday - weee!) and look at all the posts.

Again asking just to feel out your point of view here...

If the Monk (Martial Artist) is able to ignore DR from a relatively low level, aside from loosing the ability to punch incorporeal creatures, what need is there for enhancing his unarmed strike?

A friend has made a monk to throw in the next game. A defensive monk with a low DPR too, I wonder what the party will think?

Will get back to you on that.

Will likely depend on how the balance of role-play vs. roll-play is in the game and how developed the "Character" of the PC is.

If the game focuses primarily on how much damage you do in combat then the defensive monk will be frowned upon.

That works for me. Of course it is resource-dependent, which can be a pain. Brass knuckles were removed from enhancing unarmed strikes because they made the AoMF redundant, and unfortunately they may regard this the same way.

Actually Sean said in another thread that it was because it made no sense for monks to all be running around with brass knuckles, considering thematically the class fight bare handed. He had similar concerns when some people expressed interest in hand wraps that could be enhanced.

He did express some AoMF obsolescence concerns in the past, but I think that has died down as it has been show that the AOMF has more use to druids and multi-armed monsters than to the monk.

I would be opposed to full BaB as it would apply to all weapons across the board and one of my issues is how the iconic style (unarmed) is inferior to using weapons, but I do think you could give inherent attack bonuses to unarmed strike to make them equivalent to full BaB.

If the Monk (Martial Artist) is able to ignore DR from a relatively low level, aside from loosing the ability to punch incorporeal creatures, what need is there for enhancing his unarmed strike?

Other than hitting the target something like as often as other combat classes and not turning flurry-of-blows into flurry-of-misses? This is the big monk problem, always. It's not the damage dealt if you hit, it's the size of the if.

The issue is that the developers seem to have decided that AoMF is the ONLY way that you get to enhance monk damage. When you ask for or try to create something else it seems to escalate quickly into a shouting match(on both sides). Actually the current nerf/retcon/the way it has always been debuff on the monk class actually came from a thread where people were asking for something to buff monks instead of the Amulet and then both sides got rude and then they either realized that most people(including their own Ap's) were playing it wrong or nerfed the monk depending on who you believe.

...this is why I concentrated on items and abilities to supplement the AoMF rather than replace it.

I would be opposed to full BaB as it would apply to all weapons across the board and one of my issues is how the iconic style (unarmed) is inferior to using weapons, but I do think you could give inherent attack bonuses to unarmed strike to make them equivalent to full BaB.

Yeah, I gave the monk re-design I did weapon training but only with unarmed strikes and monk weapons, and made the BAB 3/4 across the board. They ended up slightly better off flurrying, and a lot better off when delivering single strikes.

And that was one aspect of your design I really liked, Dabbler.

MA

Lokie wrote:

If the Monk (Martial Artist) is able to ignore DR from a relatively low level, aside from loosing the ability to punch incorporeal creatures, what need is there for enhancing his unarmed strike?

Other than hitting the target something like as often as other combat classes and not turning flurry-of-blows into flurry-of-misses? This is the big monk problem, always. It's not the damage dealt if you hit, it's the size of the if.

The +2 to hit on all attacks that is part of Exploit Weakness goes a fair bit towards correcting this.

wraithstrike wrote:

Chengar Qordath wrote:

wraithstrike wrote:

Lokie wrote:

wraithstrike wrote:

Lokie wrote:

Let me ask everyone this... Is there now enough content out that at least helps "patch" the Monk via Archtypes, feats, etc.. to agree that the Monk is at least playable in a "standard" i.e. non-hardcore/optimized game? (Such as the majority of games I've played in.)

Not if you want to use unarmed strikes. If you want to use weapons then I would say yes. I am not saying no other method works, but you better know the system, and bring your A game which is my #1 complaint.

Even with the Martial Artist archtype and accompanying ability to ignore all dr?

I just looked that up, and I saw no ability to ignore all DR. Do you have a quote for that?

They can ignore the hardness of an object, but hardness is not DR.

"Exploit Weakness (Ex): ... If the check succeeds, the martial artist gains a +2 bonus on attack rolls until the end of his turn, and any attacks he makes until the end of his turn ignore the creature or object’s DR or hardness."

I guess the martial artist gets a pass then. I hate failing perception checks. I looked for that like 3 times. I guess I failed because I typed "damage reduction" in my search bar instead of "DR".

edit:The monk still can't enhance his unarmed strike so no, he does not get a pass without weapons.

Thanks to all who pointed to the source for me. Away from the boards for awhile yesterday (my birthday - weee!) and look at all the posts.

Again asking just to feel out your point of view here...

If the Monk (Martial Artist) is able to ignore DR from a relatively low level, aside from loosing the ability to punch incorporeal creatures, what need is there for enhancing his unarmed strike?

If they could be enhanced the attack bonus and damage would go up for the monk.

On top of that sense weakness depends on a roll, and if it fails the ability does not activate. Being able to enhance the fist means that the ability to bypass DR is always on. Being able to enhance the fist also means you don't have to take this archetype if you don't want to.

i counted the point allotment of Dabbler's monk Feriah. its a 40 point buy. the sole reason she is able to contribute meaningfully.

when you have a 40 point buy it has the following effects

monks can finally contribute

attribute prerequisites on feats may as well be thrown out the window.

it opens up some fun and interesting character builds you wouldn't normally see. such as 2WF clerics, dwarven bards, halfling barbarians, monks that don't suck or even skilled fighters with decent will saves as examples.

i would join a 40+ point campaign just to play a female tian dual sickle wielding 2WF inquisitor of pharasma modeled loosely after Enma Ai from Jigoku Shoujo.

Is there no such thing as handwraps +1 or perhaps gloves +1? If the main reason people seem to hate the monk is that they can't hit anything (and from reading the majority of posts, it is) then maybe there should be some magical gloves for the monks unarmed attacks.

Or maybe that is a fix for the monk, as long as he has 1 ki point in his pool he gains an enhancement bonus which increases as he levels.

Is there no such thing as handwraps +1 or perhaps gloves +1? If the main reason people seem to hate the monk is that they can't hit anything (and from reading the majority of posts, it is) then maybe there should be some magical gloves for the monks unarmed attacks.

Or maybe that is a fix for the monk, as long as he has 1 ki point in his pool he gains an enhancement bonus which increases as he levels.

*cough* Gauntlets *cough*

i counted the point allotment of Dabbler's monk Feriah. its a 40 point buy. the sole reason she is able to contribute meaningfully.

What a coincidence. :3

In a 40+ point buy it's not so bad,

I guess I agree fully. :3

What 40 point buy Monk of Dabblers are you looking at?

This thread is a great read. I really appreciate the points pro- and con- about Monks and their effectiveness. I am currently enjoying playing a Flowing Monk quite a bit; he's been really useful both in and out of combat, and I think that he will remain useful throughout the campaign.

I agree that the Flowing archetype is an improvement on the baseline Monk--reduces MAD--and perhaps defensive characters aren't for everyone or every party.

I do think that points made about Monks needing some magic item boosting, which causes a bit of a dissonance with both players and designers as to the flavor of the Monk, warrants further analysis.

Ashiel, your adventure gear guide is especially helpful for Monks, by the way, who really, really need those potions and oils. Now, if we can just pour magic weapon oil on our hands...

This thread is a great read. I really appreciate the points pro- and con- about Monks and their effectiveness. I am currently enjoying playing a Flowing Monk quite a bit; he's been really useful both in and out of combat, and I think that he will remain useful throughout the campaign.

I agree that the Flowing archetype is an improvement on the baseline Monk--reduces MAD--and perhaps defensive characters aren't for everyone or every party.

I do think that points made about Monks needing some magic item boosting, which causes a bit of a dissonance with both players and designers as to the flavor of the Monk, warrants further analysis.

Ashiel, your adventure gear guide is especially helpful for Monks, by the way, who really, really need those potions and oils. Now, if we can just pour magic weapon oil on our hands...

Fun fact. I place more emphasis on defense than I do offense. I just don't think monk defenses are anything to write home about. Barbarians have better defense.

Have you written up a fix for monks, Ashiel?

Have you written up a fix for monks, Ashiel?

Yes, actually. But it didn't require writing so much as duct tape.

Have you written up a fix for monks, Ashiel?

Yes, yes he has. Ashiel wrote up one of the, in my opinion, better Monk fixes you can find. It reverts back to 3.5 Monk in a lot of ways, but then gives the Monk the Psychic Warrior abilities from Psionics Unleashed by Dreamscarred Press.

I liked it, but most of my players were too wary of possible power creep to allow it, and my GMs dislike anyone bringing anything they aren't intimately familiar with. Learning a whole new system for one character, is one such thing they disallow. They just don't want to deal with having to pause and ask, "What does that do?" every time such a character reveals a new ability.

They know Wizards, they know Clerics, they know Fighters and Barbarians and Paladins, and know what to expect when they are brought to the table. But if someone were to show up with a Psion, and the others have no knowledge of the system, it will bring too many surprises, and unexpected abilities.

[Edit] Dang, this is 5th Ninja in 16 hours, but at least they aren't all on the same forum.

Mixing the monk with psion, cool. I think they would also be very nifty if they could drain ability scores like the old psionic attacks.

I love that concept, Ashiel; psionics work really well with monks, and keeps them 'weird', which I think is part of their appeal to many. I have loved psionics since AD&D ver. 1, concept wise.

What would be a non-3PP solution, one that wouldn't require a bunch of new material? Give them many more ki points and a bunch of ki spells a la the Qinggong monk? (thus cannibalizing that archetype.)

I love that concept, Ashiel; psionics work really well with monks, and keeps them 'weird', which I think is part of their appeal to many. I have loved psionics since AD&D ver. 1, concept wise.

What would be a non-3PP solution, one that wouldn't require a bunch of new material? Give them many more ki points and a bunch of ki spells a la the Qinggong monk? (thus cannibalizing that archetype.)

Stragen's Monk Errata is an attempt to fix the Monk on behalf of the Developers. The goal was to make an actual Errata that they could pluck off the forum and slap in the book. It matches the Word count and space in the CRB so they don't have to alter any pages, and I believe most of the archetypes can work with the Errata well enough with only minor amounts of tweaking.

If you want to simply tweak the Monk to fix him, this Errata is probably the one for you.