It's very effective when you're fighting an unprotected wizard who doesn't cast spells and without buddies, but it seems to be pretty rare in your game.Yes, in my experience, stupid wizards tend to be rather rare. If you're going up against a sorcerer, sure it could work, but against a reasonably prepared wizard, it will usually end with a dead monk.99 times out of 100 the best strategy is to close on the caster. If you can get there you can either stun or grapple.
Monks have the best movement to get around BBEG’s buddies, and since fort is a low save for casters, it is usually the best move.
It is kind of like some fighters have good will saves, but you are going with the will save spell over the fort save spell, all things being equal.
Movement is the ability to pick who you fight, go around who you don’t want to, get away if you are getting in trouble.
Add to that the fact that a monk has all good saves and a high touch AC and 99 times out 100 the monk is going to try and close on the caster and either stun or grapple them.
And once you get to the caster in that situation, you are usually surrounded by smash your face in types, no remaining actions, no immediate support, and not enough HP to take very many hits. You're better off letting your caster deal with the enemy caster until you can clear a path and/or isolate the caster. Going straight for the caster is just dumb.
|
The monk wins initiative. He tumbles over the enemy's defensive line and closes with the wizard. On their initiative, the rest of his party closes with the enemy's defensive line. You want the enemy's defensive line to scramble back to their wizard and defend him? This action gives your party members attacks of opportunity against the enemy's defensive line as well as discoordinates the enemy's tactics. That's still a win for the monk.
Are you going to put the enemy wizard close enough to the enemy defensive line so that the enemy defensive line can be next to the wizard in one half move? Okay, that means that your entire party is now one half move away from the enemy wizard. That's still a win for the monk.
Exactly. And the alternative is the party tied up by mooks with a caster picking them off.
The monk just neutralized or at least threatened the most powerful enemy on the board, forcing them to change strategy. And if the monk gets surrounded, they are getting a single attack (they have to move and attack ) and he full retreats if his buddies don't come help.
The monk wins initiative. He tumbles over the enemy's defensive line and closes with the wizard. On their initiative, the rest of his party closes with the enemy's defensive line. You want the enemy's defensive line to scramble back to their wizard and defend him? This action gives your party members attacks of opportunity against the enemy's defensive line as well as discoordinates the enemy's tactics. That's still a win for the monk.
Are you going to put the enemy wizard close enough to the enemy defensive line so that the enemy defensive line can be next to the wizard in one half move? Okay, that means that your entire party is now one half move away from the enemy wizard. That's still a win for the monk.
Works great assuming the rest of the party can keep up. Also assumes that the wizard doesn't have friends equally capable of winning initiative, or at least the initiative of your friends, and that the front defensive line represents the only friends he has around. It's not a horrible tactic, but it is one that takes a bit of coordination and luck to pull off. Certainly not a 99 out of 100 times reliability. Any plan that has that many moving parts is going to be hard to pull off that often without encountering serious problems.
It comes down to the same reason I dislike sneak attack as a primary means of attacking, and why I have never understood the complaints about why flying is broken. In a purely theoritical vacuum, it can seem to be a very powerful move, but in an actual game, it has to deal with a lot of other outside factors like environment, party cooperation, and a lot of luck in the initiative dice rolls. In the end, it's still a valid tactic, but to say it's the go to tactic seems a bit of a stretch.
The monk wins initiative. He tumbles over the enemy's defensive line and closes with the wizard. On their initiative, the rest of his party closes with the enemy's defensive line. You want the enemy's defensive line to scramble back to their wizard and defend him? This action gives your party members attacks of opportunity against the enemy's defensive line as well as discoordinates the enemy's tactics. That's still a win for the monk.
Are you going to put the enemy wizard close enough to the enemy defensive line so that the enemy defensive line can be next to the wizard in one half move? Okay, that means that your entire party is now one half move away from the enemy wizard. That's still a win for the monk.Exactly. And the alternative is the party tied up by mooks with a caster picking them off.
The monk just neutralized or at least threatened the most powerful enemy on the board, forcing them to change strategy. And if the monk gets surrounded, they are getting a single attack (they have to move and attack ) and he full retreats if his buddies don't come help.
You seem to think that only the monk can deal with the caster. You're still better off for your casters to deal with the enemy casters unless they are already isolated. You also seem to assume that the mooks aren't going to hit the monk. Given that BAB goes up faster than AC, and the fact that the mooks will have flanking, that is not entirely smart to rely on, especially since the monk doesn't have the HP to back the AC up with.
Everything you are describing sounds great for the party, but I fail to see how the monk benefits from any of it. He either ends up as a pinata or wasting entire rounds getting out of situations he was dumb enough to get into. That is a large reason a lot of people don't like to play monks; the expected play style does a lot to help the party, but is usually quite frustrating for the player controlling the monk.
Works great assuming the rest of the party can keep up. Also assumes that the wizard doesn't have friends equally capable of winning initiative, or at least the initiative of your friends, and that the front defensive line represents the only friends he has around. It's not a horrible tactic, but it is one that takes a bit of coordination and luck to pull off. Certainly not a 99 out of 100 times reliability. Any plan that has that many moving parts is going to be hard to pull off that often without encountering serious problems.
The only initiative that is a concern is the guy who loses initiative to the monk, but beats everyone else, and doesn't have to worry about attacks of opportunity. This guy can get a single attack on the monk (assuming he's close enough). In return, the monk has incapacitated the enemy wizard for a round (typically in the first round of combat).
I'll take that trade since a wizard is most effective in the early rounds of combat, losing the first round for a wizard is BIG.
He has maybe incapacitated the enemy wizard (do not assume success), and if multiple supporters from the front line beat the rest of the party, some of the support has reach via size and/or reach weapons, or there was a rogue type hiding behind the wizard you didn't know about who was waiting for precisely that tactic, you have a very good chance of ending up with a dead or incapacitated PC.
Again, it may be worth it from the perspective of the party, but for the player running that PC, it can get a bit old to be always be the pinata when the PC doesn't have the PC or hitting power to back it up.
The way I build my monks, they only really worry about wis and dex. Further, since so much of the class benefits from attribute mods, the lions share of their WBL goes into boosting these attributes as high as possible. Along with Improved Initiative, a monk has a very strong chance of winning initiative. They don't win it always, but that's okay, they've got other strategies they can use in that case. Here, I'm discussing one particular example of something the monk can do.The monk wins initiative.Yes, monk never lose initiative. They have the highest Dexterity in the game because they aren't MAD, they can take improved initiative and reactionary, they have a scorpion familiar, they add half their level to initiative, and they can act while surprised.
Aside from the lack of strength and con that is going to cause you all sorts of problems without help from magical items, you must have a generous DM to get that much wealth. For all that I've seen people on forums claim that characters can expect to be overflowing with magic items by level 10 at the latest, I personally have yet to see it in an actual game.
This is just plain don't understand. What is good for the party is good for the monk. Its called "teamwork" and its a great way to win combats.
Let me guess. You also believe that the cleric should do nothing but heal because that is what helps the party the most.
Teamwork is great, but I would dispute that what is good for the party is always good for the monk. If the player controlling the monk enjoys that style of play, great, but a lot of people don't and/or aren't playing the game as a competition against the DM. Frankly, I don't see a lot of players enjoying actually running the the kind of character you are suggesting. If you do, great, but that doesn't mean that the monk class can't be improved to make playing it less of a headache for others while still being fun for you.
No. The wizard is most effective buffing the fighters. I don't want him to be distracted by anything else, particualarly in the early rounds of combat.
Did you clear this with the wizard? Now you are not only making assumptions for the fighters about what tactics they are expected to use, but the casters as well. Sounds rather arrogant, if you ask me. Of course, if the other players are of like mind, great, but I know that if I was at a table where someone made such assumptions about what my character would be doing, I would let that character deal with whatever he got himself into if helping him exceeded what I was prepared to do at that time.
|
|
No Str? OK, you can't stun Togomor, since you don't overcome his DR.
No Con? OK, you die during round 1 - the round you're isolated in the middle of your enemies.
Sounds great.
And how do you gain init against a properly build diviner or battle oracle or tactic cleric?
At 12th it is 2d6 damage plus at minimum +5 strength as well as some kind of damage attack boost either in the form of amulet or brass knuckles, etc.
Looking at Togomor, they will hit on anything but a 1.
A 14th level monk with a 20 wisdom (low for that level) will have a save DC of 22 (10+7+5)
Togomor fails more than 50%
That is your example? Seriously?
Let me guess. You also believe that the cleric should do nothing but heal because that is what helps the party the most.?? 98% of the time, what the cleric can do that helps the party the most is not healing.
You don't want to analyze it from the perspective of having a competition against the DM? Okay. We can look at it from a roleplaying perspective. But if we do that, there's no point in this thread at all.
Teamwork is great, but I would dispute that what is good for the party is always good for the monk. If the player controlling the monk enjoys that style of play, great, but a lot of people don't and/or aren't playing the game as a competition against the DM.
The cleric example was used simply because it gets used most of the time; it seems to be the class that most often gets pigeon holed into an expected set of actions, whether that be healing or buffing.
As for the DM competition, the point of that is that the kind of person who optimizes their character to that level is usually competing with either the DM or the other players, whether they realize it or not, and while it is a legitimate play style, not everyone wants to go to that length to have an enjoyable character.
When I play a monk, I play it because I enjoy a character who moves around the battle mat a lot taking advantage of these kinds of opportunities. (fast movement is what I most associate with fantasy martial arts in my own mind) It is both a roleplaying choice and a tactical choice (which I don't see as seperate things since an adventurer should be mindful of tactics)
As for the DM competition, the point of that is that the kind of person who optimizes their character to that level is usually competing with either the DM or the other players, whether they realize it or not, and while it is a legitimate play style, not everyone wants to go to that length to have an enjoyable character.
It's great that you love that kind of play, but not everyone does. Also, not everyone thinks every adventurer is going to be mindful of tactics at that level. The disconnect we're having is that you seem to think that because the monk class works for you, it obviously works and doesn't need any changes. What I'm saying is that it doesn't work for everyone. If it was in the APG where the more niche classes are, I wouldn't have a problem with it as written, but being in the core book means it's going to get measured by a different standard, one that emphasizes the ability for as many people as possible to use it without having a migraine or getting to level 5 only to realize that the class is nothing like they thought it would be. Core classes require a bit more consistency than what the current core monk offers, especially since archetypes can cover the variations so easily.
It's great that you love that kind of play, but not everyone does. Also, not everyone thinks every adventurer is going to be mindful of tactics at that level. The disconnect we're having is that you seem to think that because the monk class works for you, it obviously works and doesn't need any changes. What I'm saying is that it doesn't work for everyone. If it was in the APG where the more niche classes are, I wouldn't have a problem with it as written, but being in the core book means it's going to get measured by a different standard, one that emphasizes the ability for as many people as possible to use it without having a migraine or getting to level 5 only to realize that the class is nothing like they thought it would be. Core classes require a bit more consistency than what the current core monk offers, especially since archetypes can cover the variations so easily.When I play a monk, I play it because I enjoy a character who moves around the battle mat a lot taking advantage of these kinds of opportunities. (fast movement is what I most associate with fantasy martial arts in my own mind) It is both a roleplaying choice and a tactical choice (which I don't see as seperate things since an adventurer should be mindful of tactics)
As for the DM competition, the point of that is that the kind of person who optimizes their character to that level is usually competing with either the DM or the other players, whether they realize it or not, and while it is a legitimate play style, not everyone wants to go to that length to have an enjoyable character.
It sounds like you're saying that not everyone is going to visualize a monk the same way, but that could be said of all classes and is actually already address in some of the more classic cases.
After all, a barbarian is really just an alternate fighter. Rangers are an alt druid, rogue or fighter, depending on build. Bard is an alternate rogue. From many perspectives they are all the same role play roles, just with different roll play mechanics.
Not to say changing classes isn't a good option, I for one think Paladins would be better with a 3/4 BAB & bard spell progression, with clerics going 1/2 BAB. Not due to any balance issues but due to my vision of them when I imagine their roles in the bigger world.
In any case, I don't think that a class needs to be changed just because it doesn't match a particular style. But it's a good use case for an alternative class addressing the style you're looking for.
In any case, I don't think that a class needs to be changed just because it doesn't match a particular style. But it's a good use case for an alternative class addressing the style you're looking for.
The problem is that it doesn't match any style right now. FoB in a mobility based class doesn't work. You can ignore one or the other, but then you're really only playing half the class, which kind of pointless.
In any case, I don't think that a class needs to be changed just because it doesn't match a particular style. But it's a good use case for an alternative class addressing the style you're looking for.The problem is that it doesn't match any style right now. FoB in a mobility based class doesn't work. You can ignore one or the other, but then you're really only playing half the class, which kind of pointless.
I do think that FOB should allow movement in between attacks. It would be a flavorful and unique ability that lines up well with martial arts. So that is on my wish list too.
But, I think my disconnect is with the arguement is two fold - The idea that it is not ok to have two abilities that don't work together doesn't sit well with me. IMHO it's perfectly ok to have two good choices instead of one great one.
The other part is that I don't see them as two abilities that don't work together. What's the bases for that? Is it that they can't be used on the same round? That's like saying magic missle doesn't work with fireball because you can't case them in the same round. Or that a fighers ability to remove the movement penalty to his armor doesn't work well with their higher BAB and attack rate.
It might be good to combine FOB and movement but that doesn't mean having two different types of abilities (options) is pointless.
If you don't like that kind of play, then don't play a monk. The reason different classes have different mechanics is because different people like different styles of play. By all means, pick a class which matches your style of play.It's great that you love that kind of play, but not everyone does. Also, not everyone thinks every adventurer is going to be mindful of tactics at that level. The disconnect we're having is that you seem to think that because the monk class works for you, it obviously works and doesn't need any changes. What I'm saying is that it doesn't work for everyone. If it was in the APG where the more niche classes are, I wouldn't have a problem with it as written, but being in the core book means it's going to get measured by a different standard, one that emphasizes the ability for as many people as possible to use it without having a migraine or getting to level 5 only to realize that the class is nothing like they thought it would be. Core classes require a bit more consistency than what the current core monk offers, especially since archetypes can cover the variations so easily.When I play a monk, I play it because I enjoy a character who moves around the battle mat a lot taking advantage of these kinds of opportunities. (fast movement is what I most associate with fantasy martial arts in my own mind) It is both a roleplaying choice and a tactical choice (which I don't see as seperate things since an adventurer should be mindful of tactics)
As for the DM competition, the point of that is that the kind of person who optimizes their character to that level is usually competing with either the DM or the other players, whether they realize it or not, and while it is a legitimate play style, not everyone wants to go to that length to have an enjoyable character.
I personally have played the monk, and enjoyed it, but for being a core class, it comes with a lot of unnecessary headaches. Unlike the rogue, whose problems are not small or limited to a single ability, making the monk a lot more accessible can largely be done simply by fixing or moving FoB. That solves 90% of the complaints about the class, and since most people who currently play the monk apparently don't actually use it much anyway right now, they aren't likely to be effected by the change. In it's current form, FoB simply doesn't add enough to justify the emphasis it gets or the headaches it causes; alleviate that problem, and the rest of the pieces work quite well together.
|
|
There are different philosophies regarding monk builds. Ciretose and I have different opinions on the matter. It doesn't mean that either of us is wrong.So you're arguing that when I'm responding to you that your build can't stun Togomor, the fact that Citerose's build can stun Togomor is somehow relevant? You're arguing that monks are at the same time in the state "your build" and in the state "Citerose's build"?
Even with his build, a 14th level monk is going to have a monk robe, meaning the monk is doing 2d8 damage.
Let's assume a 16 strength, which at that point is standard even for a dex build. Now we are up to 2d8 +3. Add in either an amulet, brass knuckles, etc...and you are at least at 2d8 +5.
Don't try to deflect the fact that your example wizard fails the save more than 50% of the time and is more or less hit on anything but a 1.
|
|
The monk wins initiative.Yes, monk never lose initiative. They have the highest Dexterity in the game because they aren't MAD, they can take improved initiative and reactionary, they have a scorpion familiar, they add half their level to initiative, they roll initiative twice and keep the highest, and they can act while surprised.
That's far more efficient than any caster ever.
...And then they out-tumble everyone because the DC to tumble a melee character isn't very high, they go in position because every caster is visible, identifiable and standing on the ground, they hit because no caster has a good AC, they stun because no caster has high Fort, they stay one round to make a flurry of blow because the caster's buddy are always far away from their own caster, and they tumble away because tumble some melee character is easy.
That's a far more reliable strategy than Blindness/quickened Blindness/Sound burst/quickened Sound burst/any anti-caster spell, I guess.
If the caster wins initiative, the monk is still closing. The caster gets a spell and then the monk closes on them.
What is your point?
Mine was that the example wizard you gave is hit on a 1 and fails the save more than 50% of the time.