|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
*sigh
Yes another post on monks and how much they do or don't suck.
In a previous post, I stated my incredulity at the Monk’s being as weak as many claim. Mostly, I feel this way because I see anecdotal accounts of monk “weakness” that then sets up a situation that plays to a monk’s “weakness” has the monk face it without certain magic items or feats to boost that “weakness” and the poster says “see, weak sauce!” I equated what I was seeing to the argument that wizards shouldn’t do direct damage because it seems a statistical majority of the monsters a boom mage would face have spell resistance, energy resistance AND evasion/improved evasion. Who knew every monster had rogue levels and just the right ER to beat the mage?
As Tels and Dabbler pointed out in that other thread:
I really, really, really don't want to derail this into another 'Monk is weak' thread. Most every Monk thread that gets created, quickly becomes a thread complaining about how bad the Monk is, the Monk needs to be fixed, etc, etc. If you want to talk about the Monk, there are numerous threads out there that do so.
Tels is right, let's take this to the other thread and we'll show you the numbers there.
So, I figured, “let’s do this with maths!” The general idea is to try and see how weak the monk is by the numbers and not vague feelings or anecdotal evidence. I’ll build fighter, ranger and monk builds (others if folks really demand it) to see how well I can map a monk’s shtick to another class and “do it better” with that other class. The hard part will be doing a full on replacement as that requires at least 51% of a quorum to agree what the monk’s “shtick” really is. I posit the monk punches folks in the face with flurry (so full attack and two weapon fight), while have good defenses (monk AC, Wis to AC, Dex to AC, etc).
Seems hit dice are important too. I’ve seen enough tanking clerics that I question the “D10’s rule, D8’s suxors” line of thought. Is +2 hp at first level and +1 hp every level thereafter really that big a deal? And why does the Barbar’s d12 not make the Fighter’s d10’s look equally wimpy? Okay, not a fair question. The reason is Raging. Raging nerfs a Barbar’s AC and so the main defenses a Barbar has are DR/- and HP’s. But my general idea is to compare:
1)Damage output as a monk does damage (to whit flurry of blows and its nearest equivalent two-weapon fighting, cause yes you auto win with two-handed power attacking)
a. Look at the numbers as dice (i.e. monks do xdy+z, twf rangers do adb+c, and twf fighters do edf+g)
b. Look at the damage per round (DPR) to see what the above number mean against the typical AC at the appropriate encounter level
2)Armor Class
a. Monk’s AC with a monk optimized to hit and damage, not turtle, as what is the point of “turtle”-ing if you can’t hit monsters to make your AC useful by forcing monster to pay attention to you with hits and thus waste their swings on your AC
b. TWF-fighter as a sword and board to bring in shield and Shield Focus and Shield Bash/twf feat chains
c. TWF-fighter relying solely on Armor Training to wear full-plate with good dex (though how much Dex is reasonable to take advantage of Armor Training while keeping Str and Con up to do their work?)
d. TWF-ranger in appropriate armor.
e. I'll probably include other non-similar builds (i.e. raging two-handed barbar, two-handed fighter, the tanking paly or cleric) as these are the front line and a monk has to be on the front line to make flurry of blows worthwhile.
3)Hit points, where the questions are:
a. How much Con is just right for each of the above builds?
b. Do Fighters and Rangers take toughness as a matter of course or only as a feat isn’t taken up by a “required” feat for their build?
c. Does the fighter or ranger always use the favored class bonus on hit points? Skill points? Something else from the APG? Does the monk choose hp or something else?
d. With the above ideas, can a monk gain parity? Does parity here require sacrificing some other point of effectiveness (taking Toughness instead of some other feat that is more useful to combat)?
4)Special abilities will come into play based on the idea of four combats a day at 5 rounds per combat. In my experience with Living Greyhawk (WotC’s 3.5 worldwide shared world campaign), Pathfinder Society (Paizo’s 3.P worldwide shared world campaign), Pathfinder’s Adventure Paths and the home games I’ve played in, this is a reasonable assumption. Though truth be told the four combats a day happens more in line with home games or special dungeon crawl type modules in LG or PFS. LG had a 3 to 4 fights per module, with many mods lasting over many days. PFS and AP’s aren’t too different in my experience. I’ve only seen fights lasting 10+ rounds in 4e and that was a function of everybody having more hp’s combined with the players all having healing surges to make combat a slog of attrition no matter how you fight.
5)Magic items and spells will come into play if they are:
a. necessary
b. not universal as the idea is to highlight differences, if everyone gets haste, then it doesn't help differentiate who is better (and yes, I realize DPR takes into account gaining extra attacks and +1 to hit and +1 to dmg)
c. reasonable as it is assumed these guys are in a party with support of wizards, sorcerers, clerics, and/or druids able to provide these buffs.
6)Builds will be straight classes because the idea is to prove a monk is a viable class, not to prove the monk is a viable couple of levels of dip. So straight monk to 20, with stops at 1, 5, 10, and 15 along the way, is the idea here. As such it seems only fair to compare with the same progressions for the other classes. I’ll only consider dips in other classes or pclasses if the argument can be made that no one would ever go straight fighter or straight ranger because that is sub-optimal. Though my understanding is Paizo did their best to make the base classes more than viable at all 20 levels. Not saying Paizo succeeded in all cases, just that they tried.
What do I expect out of this? Numbers that show how the monk stacks up to a near similar fighter or ranger based on damage output (twf dpr) versus defense (AC and HP). I expect to see the monk fall behind, but am not sure how much. Will he be able to stand on the front line? Visit the front line from time to time? Need to leave the battlefield and go drink tea with his master while the “big boys” settle the fight? Meditate on the meaninglessness of it all since this reality is but an illusion and achieve enlightenment and move on to the next higher plane of existence?
edit: the goal here is not some kind of pvp deathmatch where the winner wins the internets. It is to examine whether the monk can do what flurry of blows implies he must do, stand on the front lines and punch things. From here it is a matter of whether the monk is so far behind this ideal as to be pointless, near enough to the ideal it is worth the wizard's time to support the monk with more than party wide buffs, or so uber it should be nerfed into non-existance (not likely, but hey, you never know, I might have mad leet optimization skillz).
A straight by the numbers comparison will not show other strengths a Monk can use in or out of battle.
For example, I like to spider walk and drop down on my foes' heads to initiate a Grapple.
Clever applications are going to be dismissed, I fear, with straight math on this one (I think I just had a pain in my head by suggesting math may not be the answer).
I am unsure if you're builds are going to concentrate on the same focused builds? For example, a Grappling Fighter vs. a Grappling Monk, Direct Damage Figther vs. Direct Damage Monk, etc.
3)Hit points, where the questions are:
a. How much Con is just right for each of the above builds?
b. Do Fighters and Rangers take toughness as a matter of course or only as a feat isn’t taken up by a “required” feat for their build?
c. Does the fighter or ranger always use the favored class bonus on hit points? Skill points? Something else from the APG? Does the monk choose hp or something else?
d. With the above ideas, can a monk gain parity? Does parity here require sacrificing some other point of effectiveness (taking Toughness instead of some other feat that is more useful to combat)?
3a. 14 is about as low as I have ever seen Con go in a martial class; you might be able to get by with a 12, but 14 is better.
3b. If you can spare it, must have feat. Those bonus hit points can be the difference between life and death.
3c. I tend to use the favored class bonus for skills on monks, just because he NEEDS so many. Rangers . . . it tends to be hit points. Fighter . . . varies, depending on what I am building.
3d. Hard to do, but not impossible if the Fighter/Ranger has a 12 in Con, doesn't take Toughness, and spends his favored class bonus on skill points.
I will watch this thread with interest, Raniel Kavilion.
MA
Funny, I've never seen a fighter or ranger with toughness.
To the OP, I'm interested to see how this turns out.
I'd also suggest though taking the time to compare out of combat skills. Not going to say that will necessarily add parity where there appears to be none, but the monk as a d8 class with more skill points than fighter (though not as many as ranger) and some other abilities, it would be worth noting what each is likely to be capable of contributing to the party out of combat as well.
|
|
...you do realize that you have roughly 55 minutes to fill those 10 reserved posts before they get locked and you will just look funny for reserving them, right?
:facepalm:
No, I didn't, I figured it would be editable for a while else, the relevant stuff in a guide would be buried as others jump on. Oh, bother.I was still collecting my thoughts and writing out some involved stuff. Guess I'll have to hope I can write this up and insert it where folks can see it.
|
|
A straight by the numbers comparison will not show other strengths a Monk can use in or out of battle.
For example, I like to spider walk and drop down on my foes' heads to initiate a Grapple.
Clever applications are going to be dismissed, I fear, with straight math on this one (I think I just had a pain in my head by suggesting math may not be the answer).
I am unsure if you're builds are going to concentrate on the same focused builds? For example, a Grappling Fighter vs. a Grappling Monk, Direct Damage Figther vs. Direct Damage Monk, etc.
Well, one of the arguments is that what with flurry only happening during a full attack, one of the roles a monk should be able to fulfill is front lining. Since flurry doesn't mesh with movement beyond:
rd 1) full move to the guy, take one swipe, take a beatingrd 2) flurry like mad, take a beating
rd 3) lather, rinse, repeat
Also consider that "Fighter is king, monks suxors" comes from the idea fighter dish out damage, and stand on the front lines taking it (or not as AC applies). Monk flurry is set up to trade punch for punch and is at the heart of much heartache. So is flurry useful? Does it need to go the way of the dodo for abilities that mesh with movement better?
I'm more than happy to add maneuver monk vs maneuver fighter into the mix. It'd just have to be another set of builds. In this case the assumptions would have to be based on the average AC, Touch AC, Grapple checks, stats of monsters and NPCs.
I think what I'll find is the monk rewards clever players and clever play, while punishing those who need to have everything preplanned and their combat choices laid out before hand. I am prepared to be surprised/disappointed based on the outcome. But hell, I'm the self-crowned king of screwy ideas. My mottoes are "IF it is stupid AND works, THEN it isn't stupid" and "If the result is repeatable, then the first time wasn't an accident."
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, I can't see Tels post. I mean I can see that he did post, but I can't see anything there.
MA
Yeah I wondered about what Tels was trying to say....
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I said exactly what I wanted to say.
Invisible text is invisible.
(It's an invisible dot)
Raniel Kavilion, try again, this time using google docs.
.
*sigh
Yes another post on monks and how much they do or don't suck.In a previous post, I stated my incredulity at the Monk’s being as weak as many claim. Mostly, I feel this way because I see anecdotal accounts of monk “weakness” that then sets up a situation that plays to a monk’s “weakness” has the monk face it without certain magic items or feats to boost that “weakness” and the poster says “see, weak sauce!” I equated what I was seeing to the argument that wizards shouldn’t do direct damage because it seems a statistical majority of the monsters a boom mage would face have spell resistance, energy resistance AND evasion/improved evasion. Who knew every monster had rogue levels and just the right ER to beat the mage?
As Tels and Dabbler pointed out in that other thread:
I really, really, really don't want to derail this into another 'Monk is weak' thread. Most every Monk thread that gets created, quickly becomes a thread complaining about how bad the Monk is, the Monk needs to be fixed, etc, etc. If you want to talk about the Monk, there are numerous threads out there that do so.Tels is right, let's take this to the other thread and we'll show you the numbers there.So, I figured, “let’s do this with maths!” The general idea is to try and see how weak the monk is by the numbers and not vague feelings or anecdotal evidence. I’ll build fighter, ranger and monk builds (others if folks really demand it) to see how well I can map a monk’s shtick to another class and “do it better” with that other class. The hard part will be doing a full on replacement as that requires at least 51% of a quorum to agree what the monk’s “shtick” really is. I posit the monk punches folks in the face with flurry (so full attack and two weapon fight), while have good defenses (monk AC, Wis to AC, Dex to AC, etc).
Seems hit dice are important too. I’ve seen enough tanking clerics that I question the “D10’s rule, D8’s suxors” line of thought. Is +2...
1.This board is not like other boards where you can edit a post whenever you want. You have a one hour time limit.
2. We(us monk lovers) don't pick on monks so I have no idea about what you mean when you say the monk is being setup. If you have links that would be nice. With that aside we did put the monk up against a variety of monsters in this thread, and it was not impressive at all. <--The thread in this link did use the maths. I think we used level 13 because many GM's like to think that stopping a game between levels 13 and 15 stops the game from becoming "over the top". I will also add that in the thread we assumed the monk had a party to back him up.
The monk was the 5th party member also, just like the barbarian was that it was compared to. In every case except for maybe 1 the barbarian came out ahead. The closest the monk came to competing was with the maneuver master build, but only because the archetypes can ignore prereqs, and that only proved that certain archetypes such as the manuver master, sohei(until errata comes out, martial artist(not too shabby), and the zen archer are decent.
3. Going back to point 2, we(monk lovers) want the monk to be better, that is why we complain.
In short all of the things you suggest we look at have already been looked at in various threads. The monk is not unplayable, but it is very hard to play.
|
|
1.This board is not like other boards where you can edit a post whenever you want. You have a one hour time limit.
So I've learned.
2. We(us monk lovers) don't pick on monks so I have no idea about what you mean when you say the monk is being setup. If you have links that would be nice. With that aside we did put the monk up against a variety of monsters in this thread, and it was not impressive at all. <--The thread in this link did use the maths. I think we used level 13 because many GM's like to think that stopping a game between levels 13 and 15 stops the game from becoming "over the top". I will also add that in the thread we assumed the monk had a party to back him up.
The monk was the 5th party member also, just like the barbarian was that it was compared to. In every case except for maybe 1 the barbarian came out ahead. The closest the monk came to competing was with the maneuver master build, but only because the archetypes can ignore prereqs, and that only proved that certain archetypes such as the manuver master, sohei(until errata comes out, martial artist(not too shabby), and the zen archer are decent.
This was the plan more or less. Though I figured including a bit more of a "lifetime" for the monk (1, 5, 10, 15, 20) to show the monk as it is coming up and into its own. And it was not so much any one group that got me thinking "hmmm, are there any untested assumptions here?" I've seen enough untested assumptions to last a few lifetimes. Can't tell you how many times I sat down at a convention table and told the group I was playing a wizard that was anything other than a buffer or a summoner and heard complaints, whines and whinges. Only to turn all of those assumptions on their ear by putting out really good amounts of damage and more than contributing to combat.
Contributing well to combat to me is a key factor for D&D. Whether you are healing, hitting, setting up flanks or channeling the bad guys to keep them from wandering off and stabbing others in the back, everyone should contribute to combat in most D&D campaigns. I have a way longer rant on combat, diplomacy, optimization (in both), and roleplaying versus "roleplaying" versus rollplaying. That is for another thread. Needless to say, I feel combat is usually the job of most adventurers (or specifically PCs in most campaigns).
3. Going back to point 2, we(monk lovers) want the monk to be better, that is why we complain.
In short all of the things you suggest we look at have already been looked at in various threads. The monk is not unplayable, but it is very hard to play.
Yeah, but I've mostly seen anecdotal evidence or generalizations. Granted most of those may have come out of some thread and are burried in the middle of said thread waiting to be gleaned. My hope was to put the math up front in the first few posts where some one could drop in and say "see! right there in post 3. That is what I'm talking about. That is why!" That way, folks wanting to make a point one way or the other wouldn't have to look for post 873 in a thread with 4,573 posts to find that one nugget that comes close to saying what they need.
Also, I was hoping to put as much of all the different issues in one place as I could reasonable fit in a few posts. I've seen one topic about AC, another topic on hitting and damage, and a third on hp. With all of the issues under one roof, I hoped to pool all of the knowledge possible. After all, is there an issue with only one thing? Is the issue a synergy of two or more issues? Granted I have more likely than not bit off way more than I can chew in one go. But I'll do my best to put the data out there.
Maybe, some admin will take pity on a poor fool and in a week or so open up those first 10 posts to be re-edited when I have the whole thing typed out and ready to post. (*makes sad puppy dog eyes) After all, my goal isn't to edit the past to make it look like I won an argument and the other guy is an idiot. My goal was to put the info at the front and let folks see it in an easy to read lay out.
If not, I'll just make a google doc and link it in here and hope that will do the job.
I would just do the google doc, if for no other reason than if you make an error you can always change it, or if one of us points out that you should use feat X and not feat Y you can change that also.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would just do the google doc, if for no other reason than if you make an error you can always change it, or if one of us points out that you should use feat X and not feat Y you can change that also.
Yeah, that was the plan. I was just setting up the doc to get the link on the first page. I'm slow, but I get there eventually!
So without too much more fuss. . .
I would just do the google doc, if for no other reason than if you make an error you can always change it, or if one of us points out that you should use feat X and not feat Y you can change that also.Yeah, that was the plan. I was just setting up the doc to get the link on the first page. I'm slow, but I get there eventually!
So without too much more fuss. . .
Linkified!
|
|
Linkified!I would just do the google doc, if for no other reason than if you make an error you can always change it, or if one of us points out that you should use feat X and not feat Y you can change that also.Yeah, that was the plan. I was just setting up the doc to get the link on the first page. I'm slow, but I get there eventually!
So without too much more fuss. . .
Damn, ninjafied on my on attempt to create a link. 8-) Well done, sire! Thank you. *bows
I'll point out that for now, this is just a place holder. It'll take a few hours to get the first bits up. Just bear with my fumble fingered attempts at greatness! Now to get a baby to bed!
|
|
I've added a notes page where I'm doing my thinking. I've followed the link above to the mega-thread on monks and am pulling out:
1) builds
2) comparisons
3) things that just sound cool (that early bit on the halfling monks trained by bowler-wearing, extra-planar, cthulu-worshipers was just too cool not to steal from Zeetle Wyrp)
4) eventually assumptions (like Ki points are expended far faster than say uses of rounds of rage, or spells per day)
Would folks be interested in seeing this notes in addition to the final product, which is meant to be a cleaner document laying out the builds, the comparisons and the conclusions? Would folks prefer to see that here in the thread? or Would folks prefer not to see this at all, since much of it is coming from old arguments they've already seen?
The notes would be nice, but before you post them I would think of any legitimate counter-claims. As an example be aware of GM playstyle making a monk look better than it really is. If a monk does something that is illegal by the rules, but it is allowed due to the rule of cool, don't use it as a defense for the monk. I would also add that one should not use corner cases. The monk's speed is often given way too much credit. The game does not have a lot of chase scenes and even so a druid or hasted character can also run them down. A caster might also just use a spell to block their path, and at higher level people/creatures, can just teleport away. Another example is the GM trying to force people to take their armor off, and claim that the community has no way of proving that most games are not run like that.
You should also list how a monk should be generally useful in a party. In the monk is in a 4 man party which of the traditional 4 roles is he going to take, and why should someone take the monk, when they can probably make an unarmed version of the other character and deal similar damage if not more at times.
In short be prepared to give reason why someone should take the monk for mechanical reasons, and not use another class, and call it a monk.
I am assuming you notes will handle some of these, but the things listed above come up often, and that is by no means an exhaustive list.
I know my own recent... Frustrations with the Brawling template will need to be into account with any competitive grappler build.
I normally loves testing the numbers of things, but I feel that in the case of the monk, it isn't going to give an accurate indication of the class. (Not that math is much of an accurate representation of actual play.)
Monks have too many things which are situational - stunning fist, all the different uses of Ki, immunities, touch AC, etc. There are just too many things that don't apply when crunching numbers. With that said, I look forward to finding out where monks stand by the numbers. I suspect it is not as far behind as many people complain about.
I think the best thing Paizo could do right now to end half the monk troubles would be to print some kind of "Unarmed Brawler" type class that is competitive in the DPR Olympics and let the monk be the odd class it has been since the beginning. Expecting monks to deal as much damage as some other classes seems like it misses the point in many ways.
|
|
The notes would be nice, but before you post them I would think of any legitimate counter-claims. As an example be aware of GM playstyle making a monk look better than it really is. If a monk does something that is illegal by the rules, but it is allowed due to the rule of cool, don't use it as a defense for the monk. I would also add that one should not use corner cases. The monk's speed is often given way too much credit. The game does not have a lot of chase scenes and even so a druid or hasted character can also run them down. A caster might also just use a spell to block their path, and at higher level people/creatures, can just teleport away. Another example is the GM trying to force people to take their armor off, and claim that the community has no way of proving that most games are not run like that.
Understood. This is part of what the notes are for. To lay out for myself, and now others, what my assumptions are going to be. What comes to mind is to look at front lining (to use flurry more often), using a maneuver (grapple and maybe one other that doesn't key the Greater off of Int), and the hit and run (to use movement). There wont' be much looking at corner cases.
I'd go further but that is what the notes are for. Though I would point out that teleport is a biyatch and a half against a good grappler. I say this not as a monk defender, or a grappler supporter, but as a poor, lowly, humble, kind, clean, and honest wizard player.* Standard action spells cast in a grapple can be a first class pain. So have back up teleportation.
You should also list how a monk should be generally useful in a party. In the monk is in a 4 man party which of the traditional 4 roles is he going to take, and why should someone take the monk, when they can probably make an unarmed version of the other character and deal similar damage if not more at times.
Hehe, in the notes as part of my assumptions. I like how you think. It's part of why I decided to do this. I wanted to check other folks' assumptions and figured it would help folks call me on my bs.
In short be prepared to give reason why someone should take the monk for mechanical reasons, and not use another class, and call it a monk.
I am assuming you notes will handle some of these, but the things listed above come up often, and that is by no means an exhaustive list.
This is the whole reason for the thread. What does the monk do? And can it do it well? Does someone do it better? If so, by how much is the monk out classed in "his thing"?
I think the first question will be the most controversial hands down. The third and fourth will be a close second, though.
Fortunately, I am an escapee from Infinite Monkeys yahoo group. Hell we could argue just about any 3.x rule that had even a hairsbreadth of grey area. Sadly, that also meant we could fall into a recursive loop when the camps became entrenched. One too many loops and I bailed, but I haven't lost my love of analyzing and arguing (that is rationally discussing, not yelling/screaming/hurling invectives) rules all to make the grey areas a little less grey and improve play.
Now, I must get back to the salt mines!
*Okay, I may have gone a little overboard there. 8-)
|
|
I normally loves testing the numbers of things, but I feel that in the case of the monk, it isn't going to give an accurate indication of the class. (Not that math is much of an accurate representation of actual play.)
Monks have too many things which are situational - stunning fist, all the different uses of Ki, immunities, touch AC, etc. There are just too many things that don't apply when crunching numbers. With that said, I look forward to finding out where monks stand by the numbers. I suspect it is not as far behind as many people complain about.
I think the best thing Paizo could do right now to end half the monk troubles would be to print some kind of "Unarmed Brawler" type class that is competitive in the DPR Olympics and let the monk be the odd class it has been since the beginning. Expecting monks to deal as much damage as some other classes seems like it misses the point in many ways.
Well, here I think the question is, "Can monks contribute to combat?" This will limit some of the Ki uses to pretty much Ki Attack for an extra attack and the +4 dodge to AC if facing a really tough but at ECL (almost said APL)* monster/npc. For this, I am using trejon's DPR calculator which gives the line that shows what an extra attack adds to DPR. I will also use a "monster" created from the "Create a Monster" section of the Bestiary to get average AC, HP, Attack (High), Saves (which is good, Fort/Ref/Will), DR, etc. for the builds to "face off against."
One of the issues does come down to deciding if the class is useful in 9 out of 10 fights or only that 1 out of 10. This is the question of edge cases. If a monk shines in dodging a wraith's touch attacks and can punch him some ghosts way better than other classes. Great! This strikes me as an edge case in any but an undead heavy campaign.
I'm not expecting the monk to deal as much as a fighter with his primary weapon, full WF/WS feat chain, Weapon Training, et al. I don't think the monk will fall off as bad as most people think. Now maybe I'm not using Trejon's calculator correctly, but I'm not seeing things with as big a difference. If someone has a better DPR calculator or a waaaay more accurate equation that Trejon used, just speak up. Oh and if you are Trejon, drop me a pm. I want to make sure I'm entering flurry stats correctly, else this is all for naught!
But most of this is for the notes.
*Showing my LG roots.
|
|
So here are the notes on what I'm doing. These are mostly pulling posts from other monk threads that:
a) illustrate assumptions (tested or not) that will be questions I have to answer or at least should address.
b) show builds
Interspersed are my notes to better build my characters and the level appropriate threats they will face.
Monks have too many things which are situational - stunning fist, all the different uses of Ki, immunities, touch AC, etc. There are just too many things that don't apply when crunching numbers. With that said, I look forward to finding out where monks stand by the numbers. I suspect it is not as far behind as many people complain about.
Actually when we ran a similar test in another thread these factors did come out somewhat - we found that the monk's touch AC was influential against some powers of some foes, that the use of ki had a huge effect (mainly defensively), and other factors.
Also Liam is correct in that tactics also have an effect, if the monk can get the drop of foes it can negate a full-attack of theirs, and this should be considered. What also needs to be considered, though, are the 'chips are down' situations - where the paladin is out of smites, the ranger isn't facing his favoured enemy, the monk is out of tricks, but they still have to hold the line.
I think the best thing Paizo could do right now to end half the monk troubles would be to print some kind of "Unarmed Brawler" type class that is competitive in the DPR Olympics and let the monk be the odd class it has been since the beginning. Expecting monks to deal as much damage as some other classes seems like it misses the point in many ways.
Why oh why do people think that fixing the monk, or that what those who want the monk fixed are hankering after, is to deliver damage on a par with the fighter?
What we want is for the monk to be relevant and able to contribute to the party dynamic. I'd like for the monk to hit more reliably and bypass DR because one of their main offensive abilities is Stunning Fist, and that doesn't work unless you can HIT and DO DAMAGE. It doesn't have to be a lot of damage, but it has to be some. Without this the monk is pretty much a dead loss as a combat class.
@ Raniel
Can I suggest trying out alternate monk builds, but sticking with the Core monk as the base class? What I mean by this is, no-one disputes that some of the monk archetypes are pretty good (and some really, truly, are a waste of the space it took to print them, but that's not the issue) but it's the core monk that has problems falling short of it's remit.
By alternate monk builds, I mean that there are those that build for strength (offensive), dexterity (defensive) or skills (scouting). For example, I built a monk for comparisons in the other thread that was surprisingly effective, and was designed as a scout rather than as a hitter - although in the end he hit as hard as the monk built for strength.
If you want builds, I am more than happy to create some for the monk for a given style.
So here are the notes on what I'm doing. These are mostly pulling posts from other monk threads that:
a) illustrate assumptions (tested or not) that will be questions I have to answer or at least should address.
b) show buildsInterspersed are my notes to better build my characters and the level appropriate threats they will face.
I don't have access to the documents. You might need to change the permissions if you have not already done so.
|
It is a good effort and the right approach IMHO.
You can look to the Bestiary guidelines to see if the monk can hit reliably at each level, while also being competitive with the other factors.
What I think will be found is they are behind on attack bonus relative to other 3/4 classes.
Again, it isn't trying to keep up with the d10 classes, it's the fact they aren't even near the top of the pack of the 3/4 classes when you consider most of them also get 6 levels of spells, if they aren't full divine classes.
They can't keep pace with rogues, it is arguable if they can keep pace with Bards or Inquisitors when you take self buffs into consideration, and Druids, Clerics, and Oracles are way out in front when you consider buffs and full casting.
I don't even want to open the summoner door...
As for "types of monks." You'll want a front-line full-attacker and you'll want a Maneuver Master. I'm not sure if there's any other type of monk that's viable, so whatever. I can pump out monk builds if you want.
The point here is to test the core monk, no-one doubts that some archetypes work well, it's the core that is weak.
You are also going to want to address the issue of buffs. If your findings are anything like mine, what will happen is the conclusion that, "A Monk without Mage Armor is trash at being on the front lines, while a monk with Mage Armor is positively fantastic." There is a reason my monks always buy either a pearl of power or lesser rod of extend.
If your character needs buffs from another character then there is something very wrong. If he has to provide his own, you need to explain how he knows to use them in advance. Not saying he can't, but pointing out that circumstances make the use of buffs problematical on occasion.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why are you only using TWF type fighters and rangers? Just because monk is chained to that underpowered combat style doesn't mean those classes are. And it's not like using two swords somehow causes you to fill a different role / party need than using a greatsword does.
No barbarian to compare to?
Is this core only?
|
|
@ Raniel
Can I suggest trying out alternate monk builds, but sticking with the Core monk as the base class? What I mean by this is, no-one disputes that some of the monk archetypes are pretty good (and some really, truly, are a waste of the space it took to print them, but that's not the issue) but it's the core monk that has problems falling short of it's remit.By alternate monk builds, I mean that there are those that build for strength (offensive), dexterity (defensive) or skills (scouting). For example, I built a monk for comparisons in the other thread that was surprisingly effective, and was designed as a scout rather than as a hitter - although in the end he hit as hard as the monk built for strength.
If you want builds, I am more than happy to create some for the monk for a given style.
This was my idea. The one hang up I'm now running into is, do I use dump stats or not? Would the average player, non-optimizer/powergammer, going to make use of a 7 Charisma or an 8 Intelligence on their own? They might have a friend that helps with character design. They might google for relevant help. These sources might tell them to use dump stats. But would a relatively inexperienced player come up with this idea? I'm not sure. I think they wouldn't, and so I probably won't for my builds.
On build help. I'm thinking I should do all the heavy lifting. This way it eliminates one of the variables. It is no longer about can this poster build better than that poster. It is about the classes filling a role.
|
|
Why are you only using TWF type fighters and rangers? Just because monk is chained to that underpowered combat style doesn't mean those classes are. And it's not like using two swords somehow causes you to fill a different role / party need than using a greatsword does.
No barbarian to compare to?
Is this core only?
It is core only, because the idea is to put these into the hands of a new/inexperienced player. After all, one of the complaints is the monk is either a "newb trap" or is really only for those with high levels of system mastery. The common wisdom holds that lacking that mastery, the monk falls down as being a viable member of a party. The monk is what you play when you want to switch to "Hard" mode or maybe "Nightmare."
I was interested in the two-weapon fighting because of the claims that x-class can do the monk better than the monk. I must admit this has always been a bit of a trigger for me.
I mostly play wizards, or rather I prefer to play wizards. My wife makes sure I stretch my legs and play other classes and/or roles. But I got tired back in 3.x of hearing how class x could be a better fighter. This was a lot of hokum, until divine metamagic (persistent spell) + night rods became a reality. Any such "better fighter than the fighter" build required 3 to five rounds of buffing, expected there to be lots of lead time before ambushing the enemy in every combat, and then it could lay a smack down the fighter could put out 24/7/365.
So I hear how class x is better than the monk at what the monk supposedly does, and all while purposely gimping what class x does, and I just had to check for myself. I toned down the initial response into this thread. Now I'm asking:
"Can the monk be a viable contributing member to a party?"
"Can a fairly new, non-optimizer, build a monk to fill a role and be satisfied with the results?"
"Does the monk require system mastery?"
We shall see.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Fair enough, but if you do all the work you will run into people who say you 'built it wrong' one way or the other. If you are using 20 point buy, reducing one stat to 8 is acceptable IMHO, but it's your test-bed.
Bottom line is if you can't make the monk as effective as another character class when it's optimised and min-maxed to hell and back, you've proved the point.
Edit: read your notes, and I would say they are interesting. You missed my proposed build for the monk in the other thread, though, and I'll add it here for your reference:
Male Human (Vudrani) Monk 13
LG Medium Humanoid (human)
Init +8; Senses Perception +21
--------------------
Defense
--------------------
AC 34, touch 30, flat-footed 25 (+4 armor, +8 Dex, +2 deflection, +1 dodge)
hp 81 (13d8+13)
Fort +12, Ref +19, Will +16
Defensive Abilities Evasion, Improved Evasion; Immune Diamond Body, disease, poison; SR 23
--------------------
Offense
--------------------
Speed 70 ft.
Melee +1 Mithral Kama +18/+13 (1d6+2/x2) and
. . Masterwork Cold Iron Siangham +18/+13 (1d6+1/x2) and
. . Unarmed Strike +19/+14 (2d6+9/19-20/x2)
Ranged +1 Crossbow, Light +18/+13 (1d8+1/19-20/x2) and
. . Masterwork Cold Iron Shuriken +18/+13 (1d2+1/x2)
Special Attacks Flurry of Blows +11/+11/+6/+6/+1, Ki Strike, Lawful, Ki Strike, Magic
--------------------
Statistics
--------------------
Str 10/12, Dex 20/26, Con 10/12, Int 14, Wis 16/20, Cha 8
Base Atk +9; CMB +21 (+23 Grappling, +23 Tripping); CMD 40 (42 vs. Grapple, 42 vs. Trip)
Feats Agile Maneuvers, Combat Reflexes (9 AoO/round), Crane Riposte, Crane Style, Crane Wing, Dodge, Improved Critical (Unarmed Strike), Improved Grapple, Improved Trip, Improved Unarmed Strike, Monk Weapon Proficiencies, Spring Attack, Stunning Fist (13/day) (DC 21), Weapon Finesse, Weapon Focus (Unarmed Strike)
Traits Vagabond Child (urban) (Disable Device), Wisdom in the Flesh (Climb)
Skills Acrobatics +24, Appraise +3, Climb +20, Disable Device +32, Escape Artist +13, Heal +6, Intimidate +3, Knowledge (dungeoneering) +4, Knowledge (history) +10, Knowledge (local) +6, Knowledge (religion) +8, Perception +21, Ride +12, Sense Motive +21, Sleight of Hand +13, Stealth +24, Swim +8
Languages Common, Draconic, Varisian, Vudrani
SQ Abundant Step, AC Bonus +8, Astrolabe, Earplugs, Fast Movement (+40'), High Jump (+13/+33 with Ki point), Ki Defense, Ki Pool, Maneuver Training, Map Maker's Kit, Purity of Body, Ram, portable, Slow Fall 60', Smoked Goggles, Stunning Fist (Stun, Fatigue, Sicken, Stagger), Unarmed Strike (2d6), Vow of Truth (+2 Ki), Wholeness of Body (13 HP/use)
Combat Gear +1 Crossbow, Light, +1 Mithral Kama, Masterwork Cold Iron Shuriken (50), Masterwork Cold Iron Siangham; Other Gear Acid Flask (3), Agile Amulet, Alchemist's Fire Flask (3), Alkali Flask (3), Astrolabe, Bedroll, Belt of Incredible Dexterity, +6, Bladeguard, Blanket, winter, Bracers of Armor, +4, Caltrops (2), Chalk, 1 piece, Climber's kit, Cloak of Resistance, +3, Crowbar, Earplugs, Everburning torch, Fishhook, Flint and steel, Goggles of Minute Seeing, Grappling hook, Hammer, Handy Haversack (67 @ 129.64 lbs), Headband of Inspired Wisdom, +4, Heatstone, Holy Water Flask (3), Ioun Stone, Dusty Rose Prism, Ioun Stone, Pale Blue Rhomboid, Ioun Stone, Pink Rhomboid, Liquid Ice (3), Map Maker's Kit, Mirror, small steel, Oil of Bless Weapon (2), Piton (10), Pole, 10-foot, Pot, iron, Potion of Cure Moderate Wounds (2), Potion of Fly, Potion of Invisibility, Potion of Remove Curse, Potion of Resist Acid 10, Potion of Resist Fire 10, Powder (2), Ram, portable, Rations, trail (per day) (3), Ring of Protection, +2, Rope, silk (50 ft.) (2), Sack (empty), Sack (empty), Sewing needle, Smoked Goggles, Spade or shovel, Spyglass, Sunrod (3), Tanglefoot bag (3), Thieves' tools, masterwork, Twine (50'), Whetstone
--------------------
Special Abilities
--------------------
Abundant Step (Su) For 2 Ki points, use dimension door.
AC Bonus +8 The Monk adds his Wisdom bonus to AC and CMD, more at higher levels.
Agile Maneuvers Use DEX instead of STR for CMB
Astrolabe +2 navigation
Combat Reflexes (9 AoO/round) You may make up to 9 attacks of opportunity per round, and may make them while flat-footed.
Crane Riposte When you deflect an attack, you may make an attack of opportunity
Crane Style Take -2 penalty when fighting defensively
Crane Wing May deflect one attack per round while fighting defensively or using total defense
Diamond Body (Su) At 11th level, a monk gains immunity to poisons of all kinds.
Earplugs +2 save vs. hearing effects, -5 hearing-based Perception.
Evasion (Ex) If you succeed at a Reflex save for half damage, you take none instead.
Fast Movement (+40') The Monk adds 10 or more feet to his base speed.
Flurry of Blows +11/+11/+6/+6/+1 (Ex) Make Flurry of Blows attack as a full action.
High Jump (+13/+33 with Ki point) (Ex) +13 to Acrobatics checks made to jump.
Immunity to Disease You are immune to diseases.
Immunity to Poison You are immune to poison.
Improved Evasion (Ex) If you succeed at a Reflex save for half damage, you take none instead. If you fail you take half damage.
Improved Grapple You grapple at +2, with no attacks of opportunity allowed.
Improved Trip You Trip at +2 and don't cause an attack of opportunity.
Improved Unarmed Strike Unarmed strikes don't cause attacks of opportunity, and can be lethal.
Ki Defense (Su) A monk can spend 1 point from his ki pool to give himself a +4 dodge bonus to AC for 1 round.
Ki Pool (Su) You have a ki pool equal to 1/2 your monk level + your Wisdom modifier.
Ki Strike, Lawful (Su) If you have ki remaining, unarmed strikes count as lawful to overcome DR.
Ki Strike, Magic (Su) If you have ki remaining, unarmed strikes count as magic to overcome DR.
Maneuver Training (Ex) CMB = other BABs + Monk level
Map Maker's Kit +2 Circumstance for Survival to avoid becoming lost.
Purity of Body (Ex) At 5th level, a monk gains immunity to all diseases, including supernatural and magical diseases.
Ram, portable +2 to STR checks to break open a door, and allows a second helper (+2).
Slow Fall 60' (Ex) Treat a fall as shorter than normal if within arm's reach of a wall.
Smoked Goggles +8 save vs. visual effects, -4 sight-based Perception and you treat all opponents as having 20% concealment.
Spell Resistance (23) You have Spell Resistance.
Spring Attack You can move - attack - move when attacking with a melee weapon.
Stunning Fist (13/day) (DC 21) You can stun an opponent with an unarmed attack.
Stunning Fist (Stun, Fatigue, Sicken, Stagger) (Ex) At 1st level, the monk gains Stunning Fist as a bonus feat, even if he does not meet the prerequisites. At 4th level, and every 4 levels thereafter, the monk gains the ability to apply a new condition to the target of his Stunning Fist. This conditio
Unarmed Strike (2d6) The Monk does lethal damage with his unarmed strikes.
Vow of Truth (+2 Ki) The monk is not allowed to deliberately speak any lies, including bluffing, stating half-truths with the intent to deceive, exaggerating, telling white lies, and so on. This applies to all forms of communication. If presented with circumstances where
Wholeness of Body (13 HP/use) (Su) Self-heal monk level in damage for 2 Ki points.
Wisdom in the Flesh (Climb) Climb becomes a Wisdom-based, class skill.
|
|
I think if you do or do not use dump stats isn't as relevent as long as all compared builds take the same approach.
The stat issue is this. If you are a Rogue, you can max Dex and have all other stats be secondard. Strength isn't as important as you will take weapon finesse as a rogue talent and your primary damage comes from sneak attack. So a 10 will do. You may want to be above average with Con, but no too much more than any other class. Int, Charisma, Wisdom...those are nice to have but not mission critical.
So you will want to have either an 18 or 20 Dex, at least a 12 con, everything else is flexible.
A monk has to have a high strength to hit and damage things. The unarmed bonuses don't come late in the game and don't compare to sneak attack. You can focus on Dex instead, but then you aren't doing any real damage. So you want at least 14 here, if not 16. Some even say try to stick an 18, but...
You still kind of need dex, at least as much as a rogue needs Con, because you can't wear any armor. So you want to have at least a 12 there, if not a 14.
And of course, you need Con. At least a 12.
And that is before we get to arguably your primary stat of Wisdom, which effects AC, Stunning fist, Ki, etc...
This is more comparable to Bards and Inquisitors, only both of those classes can self buff and add damage through spells or special abilities in ways monks can't.
So the question of dumping isn't as important as the question of comparable dumping.
|
|
I don't have access to the documents. You might need to change the permissions if you have not already done so.So here are the notes on what I'm doing. These are mostly pulling posts from other monk threads that:
a) illustrate assumptions (tested or not) that will be questions I have to answer or at least should address.
b) show buildsInterspersed are my notes to better build my characters and the level appropriate threats they will face.
Yeah, I forgot to change it to share with "anyone with link." My googlefu is proving very weak, right now. *sadpanda
That is corrected, and now everyone can see my wonderfully rambling ideas. Warning, I tend to have 5+ pages of notes for every page of final document. In the end it will probably be long!
LOL, Ciretose and I have different monk-building philosophies!
I go for maneuvers, speed and dexterity; he goes for strength. My reasoning is that I can compensate a little for MAD by just focussing on Dex and Wis, make up for lack of strength with maneuvers at low level, number of attacks at higher level (and an Agile AoMF). High AC helps moderate lower Con. It kind of works, takes a lot of skill, but at the end of the day it's a struggle.
|
|
I dont know if it's your intention to do this, but I'd recommend pulling some actual bestiary monsters at the listed CRs and commenting what different monks can contribute. I would actually do what a full-on, one on one combat would look like.
As for "types of monks." You'll want a front-line full-attacker and you'll want a Maneuver Master. I'm not sure if there's any other type of monk that's viable, so whatever. I can pump out monk builds if you want.
You are also going to want to address the issue of buffs. If your findings are anything like mine, what will happen is the conclusion that, "A Monk without Mage Armor is trash at being on the front lines, while a monk with Mage Armor is positively fantastic." There is a reason my monks always buy either a pearl of power or lesser rod of extend.
I would also do levels 1, 6, 11, 16, 20. As they are considered to be the major milestone levels for the melee classes.
My intention was much more painful for your poor humble researcher. I was going (and may still) "create" a level appropriate monster using this and then surveying the DR, SR, resistances and the like by going here
Buffs will be included. The issues is "if a mostly formed party had to choose who to bring, would they accept the monk?" So there will be arcane buffing, divine buffing, and flanking with a rogue to consider.
I've been of two minds about accepting builds. One is "oh, god! this is a lot of work! What was I thinking?" The other has been "will this mess up the results by having the excuse that all it proves is poster a is better at building monks than poster b?"
I mostly prefer wizzy's. I've played just about everything else to challenge myself. So I feel am as weak/strong at building a front-line fighter/barbarian/ranger as I am at building a front-line monk, without drawing on outside sources. Though I do have some good outside sources, *cough* treantmonk *cough* just to name one.
For this, I've put those down and will be building with the CRB in hand and a general idea of where I want these characters to fit into the party. It won't be easy. Hopefully, I'll finish before:
a) Christmas
b) my wife shoots me for spending too much time doing gaming stuff (and she's my DM for the Friday night game!)
c) I go insane
d) I flunk my classes this semester (though past experience shows that won't really be an issue. I can fail all on my own, thankyouverymuch)
But enough rambling. Back to the salt mines!