|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
I hope you actually read it lol.
Yes they move fast, but towards higher levels that is less of an issue. Poison/disease is only an issue if you have no cures around and bad saves or luck, 4 skills points is edging towards to the norm these days (rangers, bards, inquisitors have 6, cavaliers, barbarians, alchemists, gunslingers, druids, oracles have 4, the rogue has 8 and the remaining 8 of 19 have 2, with 3 of those being Int based casters) and many of those have more useful or versatile skill lists.
Yes, quivering palm and stunning are nice when they work. The problem is spells do the same or better, with far more reliability.
As for touch AC, yes the only thing that gives monks a run for the money there is arcane casters. Of course, monks tend to run dead last for flat footed AC so that is a trade off.
And I suppose that is part of the problem as I see it. Any of the classes except monk is generically solid. They can be flexible to fit a variety of campaign styles, have abilities that are far less situational, and overall you have in combat and out of combat utility both. I am aware a good part of that is due to the sheer amount of casters we now have, but even among non full casters many of them have more versatility. I don't think a monk should be the go to class every campaign. But it would be nice to know they weren't a subpar option most campaigns. Boosting their self healing, altering their SR, upping their hit helps some with that, but it doesn't change the fact they have a limited amount of adventuring stamina (ki pool, stunning fist, no fallbacks besides hitting stuff) and in most cases their uniqueness requires depleting limited resources at a rapid rate, unless you strip away even more magic item slots just to have some longevity outside of a 10 minute adventuring day.
The magus build Dabbler posted is actually kinda sub par, but that is neither hear nor there. Plus with spell strike and at 10th level multiple pearls of power his DPR will be through the roof.
Well, the main folks who would look at wis to hit as a good thing are the wisdom casters. Druids wouldn't really go for it, if they want to melee they have wild shape and strength for that.
Clerics have access to Guided Hand, which allows for wisdom to hit with a deities favored weapon, so it turns into a question of can they afford to lose the caster level just for being able to use unarmed strikes and monk weapons better over spending two? I think feats. Most likely not, although I could see some clerics certainly choosing that route (Irori anyone?) but It doesn't really give them something they don't already have access to.
Inquisitors is where it starts to get tricky. An inquisitor can use any weapon they want, so it turns into a question of does any monk weapon/unarmed do better for an inquisitor than one they already have access to. Inquisitors can do melee or ranged equally well, but the monk doesn't really have access to ranged weapon of the monk type excepting shurikens, so for a ranged inquisitor it isn't great except as a viable way to ditch the need for armor all together. Then they can add Wisdom to init and AC, and in melee they have a solid option of just kicking folks in the teeth. But they can sorta do that already, so I don't see it being worth trading out the increase in judgement strength, casting level, spells known, bane rounds, or the skill points (4 base for monk vs 6 for inquisitor.) For a melee inquisitor, I'd have to run the numbers to be sure, but considering what they lose on judgement strength and spell casting, I don't see it being worthwhile them restricting themselves to less damaging options than what they otherwise have access to. Of course, that being said, with judgements to equalize that, the numbers need running, since out of all of these, the inquisitor and the monk share a very, very similar role and so it is possible it can be an issue.
Really though, I think Wisdom to Hit for monks specifically for their unarmed strikes and monk weapons is fine. Those are subpar to par choices for the classes that can get the most out of it, and it requires a dip that delays some class features, and even in a full 20 level game means losing out on your capstone.
My only problem with this is that it leaves the monk in limbo. They aren't a martial class, so they can't have DPR, they aren't a skill monkey class so they have limited skill ranks, they aren't a caster so they don't have spells, so they are...none of the above. They have a few grab bag abilities that aren't bad conceptually but in practice aren't that good.
No, I am not trying to say overpower the monk, but right now it doesn't fit into any of the categories that classes get typed as, and it has no place to shine because other classes can do everything the monk can, and usually do it better. Self healing? Paladin has lay on hands that is a swift action for more healing plus status removal. Oh, and it can be used on others, or used to channel. Teleporting? Every single arcane caster in the game can do that. Fight unarmed? Sure, but every single martial class can do it better. Kill with a touch? Most casters don't even have to touch you to make you save or die. Stun lock? Well, casters can just take you out of a fight on a failed save, don't have to roll to hit, oh, and it lasts for more than one round. DR? Most classes get some form of DR. Either through magic or class abilities. Some get DR that can't be bypassed by anything. SR? Every single caster has access to protection from spells, they can share it out, and on top of it all, they can do it in a manner that doesn't gimp you all the time when you need a buff in combat. Moving fast? By the time it comes into play, parties have access to fast travel magic, flight, and a variety of other ways of covering distance. Moving faster in combat? Again, a spell covers it, and it is considered one of the staple buffs of the game.
No, all that isn't a rant in favor of getting rid of monks. It is a rant in favor of picking a niche for them like every other class has and making them excell at it instead of saying that every class can overshadow you in some area, and usually in a way that benefits the whole group, not just themselves. If the monk isn't a martial class, then it needs something outside of combat it can do that isn't already done by someone else better than the monk can do. If they are a martial class, they need to be able to shine under the right circumstances, just like the other martial classes.
And no, having a neat grab bag of abilities that don't synergize well, are barely usable in the adventuring day due to a limited resource pool, and can be duplicated or exceeded by any number of classes is not a reason to say "but the monk will step on (xyz class here)'s toes. They already step on a monks toes, maybe sharing the spotlight would be good?
Ok, now that I got that out of my system, I know how some folks are about ranting so I spoilered it...
Ok, so we say that the 35ish DPR is good enough for the monk, what else do they bring to the table, or should bring to the table that they currently don't. Paladins, rangers, magi, inquisitors, rogues, alchemists, summoners, clerics, druids, bards, cavaliers, and oracles all bring something to the table besides or in addition to DPR.
What should the monk bring, or how can we focus and improve his non combat utility if his combat utility needs to stay that far behind the martial classes?
The paladin can do many things outside of combat as well. He has lay on hands, spells, etc, and we purposefully skipped smite. So...yes, I'd say the paladin is 3-4 times as useful as the monk. If your wanting to keep the monk below every martial, I'm not sure I see the point of comparing to the martial classes. It seems like we should be comparing to the only other 3/4 BAB non caster, the rogue. Except the monk isn't a skill monkey, and the rogue has issues of its own right now.
I'm just trying to figure out what your goal is Ciretose. Fix the monk, bring it up on par with other classes, most likely the martial classes as they have the best similarity in roles? Just boost it to where it becomes a viable 5th but not 4th party member? Or something different?
And from what my math is coming out, it looks like the ranger will be looking at +18-19 to hit dual wielding vs non favored enemies for 1d6+6-9 depending on how you stat him, with either 4 attacks and rend or 5 attacks. Of course, he has a much broader and useful variety of adventuring skills (great scout) along with the animal companion or boosting the party depending on bond selection, plus his spells. And against his favored enemies it gets better. Of course, I will cheerfully admit I am not the greatest at twf rangers, I build them as archers, and I'm leaving archery out of this cause it just makes the monks lack of ranged offense look bad.
I want to see the monk fixed, I just think that for that to be the case he needs to be a viable option in a 4 man party. That means somewhere in the neighborhood of a fighter/paladin/ranger/barbarian in usefulness to the party. And before you say it...yes, two of those classes can do things other than fight. They get neat tricks to. And those tricks help people other than themselves. The other two are pretty much kings of non specialized DR. The monk needs his place, but if he is going to be viable, he needs to be in the race.
Nifty. And...stunning attempts are limited by level. Again, there is a reason I think the goals need tweaked. If we keep the goals as they are now, it would be better to aim for a monk fix more in line with rogues and bards. Well. Rogues anyway.
Which is the problem. If making them a full on martial class is not doable, the only other 3/4 BAB non casters are...the rogue. Ninja if you count alternate classes. Um...um...yep. So, yes, I do think the ideas we had are a good start, but the goals that were set don't even things up. They close the gap, but it is still there.
You ignore a couple things Ciretose, like that part of your damage is subject to energy resistance, the most common kind at that.
And yes, potentially your monk can hit for more. So can any monk now so does that mean the monk doesn't need a to hit adjustment? The fighter is far more reliable, especially once you go non core and swap out one little feat for Furious Focus (totally forgot to put the fighters feats in there. Here they are: power attack, iron will, weapon focus(greatsword), cleave, improved initiative, weapon specialization (greatsword), lightning reflexes, lunge, vital strike, greater weapon focus (greatsword), toughness, improved critical (greatsword)) so he doesn't get the penalty on the first swing. All of a sudden he can stay on a target with few issues at no penalty to hit.
And I know it is a page or two back, but go look at the comparison between your monk and actual monsters at CR 9 and 10. Against the averages it isn't to bad, but against actual monsters it isn't as good.
So yes, I do still see the gap there. It may not be as big as the one there is now, but it is still there. More than the monk vs the other full BAB classes? Dunno. Having to think about a 2 weapon ranger lol, haven't played a non archery ranger in a long, long time. And I am guessing that we don't want a comparison between the monk and an archer.
Yay double posting!!!
Well, I can do up a ranger and an inquisitor if you like. Really slow day at work. I don't think the inquisitor is going to be a pretty comparison. Also, I have been sticking to core, and not counting any buffs, even ones from a potion. I think that provides a better picture, but for the ranger and inquisitor, you want me to add in 10 min/level and longer buffs on combat stats?
And for the inquisitor, it'll be core+APG unless you think just CRB would be a better comparison.
And yes, I agree, the point isn't to overpower the monk. But as it stands, the monks we have are behind the fighters in every way. If they end up behind the paladin, the ranger, and the inquisitor, then we need to add something, because 1 of those classes is a solid replacement fighter, another is a solid fighter or rogue replacement, and the other can make a solid fighter, rogue or divine caster replacement.
Right now the monks only viable substitution is for a fighter, and he is lacking there, even with the bumps we have done.
Ok, so here is a CRB only great sword fighter. Not exactly optimal, and you'd be surprised how many of the awesome 2hander feats are from APG and UC lol.
Bruno the Bruiser
Human fighter 10
Str 24 (+ 2 race, +2 level, +2 enhancement)
Dex 14 (+2 enhancement)
Con 15 (+2 enhancement)
Wis 12 (+2 enhancement)
Hit points: 99 (+10 favored class, +10 toughness)
AC: 25 (base 10 +11 armor +2 dex +1 natural +1 deflection)
Saves: +12 Fort +10 Ref +9 Will
+24 greatsword 2d6+17(17-20/x2)
+24/+19 greatsword 2d6+17(17-20/x2)
When power attacking:
+21 greatsword 2d6+26(17-20/x2)
+21/+19 greatsword 2d6+26(17-20/x2)
May make a single attack to double rolled damage using Vital Strike.
May take a -2 to hit to extend reach for 1 turn
May use a standard action to attack with Cleave.
Class abilities: weapon training (heavy blades +2, bows +1), armor training 2, bravery +3
Not close to an optimized two handed fighter. And...none of our monks come close to his DPR potential. Before he power attacks.
I don't think any of us have gone to far, hopefully this shows had far the gap still is. Maybe we can worry less about doing more DPR than a DPR fighter now that we have a (not well optimized) baseline?
Sorry I have been absent for a couple of days. But it is letting me look at this with a fresh mind.
First things first. The bestiary thing.
Second, personally, I think the guidelines set up are a little restrictive at this point. The monk as he is now isn't a 5th wheel, he isn't really in the game at all. So, is the goal here to make him a 5th wheel or make him capable of being one of the 4 wheels you need to play? As he is a core rule book class, I'm guessing the latter needs to be the case.
Now, there are two primarily non caster types in the game. One is combat classes, the other is skill monkeys. And yes, I am reducing it down to bare bones basics. CRB we are talking about here. So, does the monk have the skill ranks or skill list to be a skill monkey class? No. Does adding extra skill ranks help? Sure. Does adding extra class skills? Yep. The first makes sense. The second...not as much. So that leaves combat.
Based off of all the classes we have, it is reasonable to assume that a 3/4 BAB class can get up to the same to hit as a full BAB class, and that right now in the CRB the monk is a hybrid of the two. So, getting a hit rate in the same neighborhood as a fighter isn't a bad thing. In fact, it is probably a good thing, as it means we can make a fair comparison between the two. The monk shouldn't exceed the fighter, but he shouldn't be overshadowed by him either.
Same for the stunning fist DC. With the exception of the fighter, most classes have the ability to use a class ability to force a save vs a DC. Those classes can reasonably assume the usage of a limited resource won't be wasted. So I am starting to think that 25-70% efficiency on stunning fist isn't unreasonable. It is one of the main special abilities of the monk, and keeping it as a "Wow, it finally worked" ability isn't making it useful, it will lead to a player ignoring that it exists by the time they have enough uses to use it multiple rounds per combat.
So, maybe revising the goals here a little would be a good thing. Just a thought.
And Ciretose, Could you indulge me and tell me what you think a monk should bring to the table in a party of 4. Not as a 5th, but as one of the 4. I know the typical four isn't always there, but the basic party comp last I checked still assumed a similar party makeup, one full BAB, one rogue/skill monkey type, one full divine caster, one full arcane caster. Some variation exists, and it isn't always the basic classes, but that does seem to be the basic assumption for module/AP design.
Oh, and I'll put up a two handed fighter in a bit on my lunch break, since we have a tank type, lets see what a DPS type fighter looks like.
Q'q, the problem with monsters as a PC like your talking about is that almost every monster past CR 4-5 has stats and innate abilities that outstrip a PC race. Ones that have effective class features, such as actual spellcasting, generally outstrip the classes themselves in an exchange of HD for Level.
Lets take a look at one of my favorites, and one I have played in the past (in 2nd and 3.0 and 3.5), the Ghaele.
For stats, they would have modifiers of:
That is just plain jane racial abilities.
For the 13 racial hit dice they get 13 caster levels of cleric, no domains or channel.
So, given a choice between a Cleric 13 (any PC race) or a Ghaele right out of the box, where do you think the balance of power is?
And in a Sharns case, the comparision comes out even worse.
I get that you want to play one. I'm not sure Dogblade really thought that one all the way through when he said you could.
Yeah, my idea adds something to keep track of, but no more than a paladin(lay on hands, spells, divine bond, smite), a barbarian (rage rounds, rage powers) or a ranger (favored enemy, spells, favored terrain) so I'm not sure what the problem is. You spend 1 ki if you want the enhancement and it lasts 10 rounds. It isn't like you track it round by round. No more, or less than buffs cast, or a bard handing bonuses out.
But, that's me. As to being able to break builds, I can do that. Bit of a busy day today so can't promise I will get to it today, but I will see what I can do cracking the books open.
Shadow dancer abilities come from one of the HOPF's Giving me the special of a prestige equal to HD-5, or in this case, all 10 levels of the Shadowdancer prestige class.
That isn't right. It is one half (HD-5). So at most you get 7 levels of a prestige class, since things always round down in Pathfinder.
As for the race...considering he set something of a cap at around noble drow...I am going to go ahead and say your just a lil past that with a sharn.
PF action economy is out the window, 2 spells (or more) a round without the need for quicken, or the full round + move is pretty much up there as being a capstone ability at 20, and even then the classes that allow it have limits. Especially when it is an innate ability.
4 Domains. As a racial ability. Only twice what the class itself grants, no biggie. And for sorcerer, is that supposed to be pick one of those three or get all three?
And under these rules, yes, it is possible to hit 20/20 caster level in 2 classes. But your still limited by action economy, and a sharn kinda tosses that out the window.
And the rules for monster advancement have nothing to do with actually playing one. That is one of those areas where the game broke down. So Paizo went and did a smart thing with the ARG. Look at driders in there. No hit dice. No innate caster levels. Just a race you start at 1st level like all the others with.
Depends. A barbarian isn't to far behind a fighter in a rage. Assuming he has weapon focus, it is a 1 point boost in the fighters favor to hit and damage at this level. At level 11 it ends up tied. After 12 it goes back to the fighter and stays that way, but only with the fighters weapon of choice, and not all fighters take the specific weapon feats.
Rangers are a step behind except vs favored enemies. Against them the fighter gets to work at it if he wants to keep up.
Paladins...well, against evil...really. I mean. Its the paladins thing. Outside of evil, they are 2-3 points behind at this level, except for the divine weapon bond can even that out fast.
So that is why I did fighter for a martial comparison. They are the gold standard of martial ability, even for the people who wouldn't want to play one.
OK, so, here are the revisions to the monk as they effect this, I'm working on redoing my revision so not a lot of point in linking the doc right now.
-Beginning at 4th level, whenever the monk makes an unarmed attack that is not part of a flurry, he gains a +1 bonus to hit. This bonus increases by 1 for every four monk levels thereafter, up to a maximum of +5 at 20th level.
-At 9th level, the monk gains a +1 bonus to hit during a flurry, and gains an additional +1 (total of +2) at 14th level.
-(this replaces ki strike)
At 4th level, a monk can expend 1 point from his ki pool as a swift action to grant his unarmed attacks a +1 enhancement bonus for 1 minute. For every three levels beyond 4th, his unarmed attacks gain another +1 enhancement bonus, to a maximum of +5 at 16th level. These bonuses stack with existing weapon enhancement’s to his unarmed attacks to a maximum of +5. Multiple uses of this ability do not stack with themselves.
At 5th level, these bonuses can be used to add any of the following weapon properties: axiomatic, flaming, flaming burst, frost, ghost touch, icy burst, keen, shock, shocking burst, or speed.
Adding these properties consumes an amount of bonus equal to the property’s base price modifier. These properties are added to any his unarmed strike already has, but duplicates do not stack. If his unarmed strikes do not have an enhancement bonus already, at least a +1 enhancement bonus must be added before any other properties can be added. These bonuses and properties are decided when the ki pool point is spent and cannot be changed until the next time the monk uses this ability.
So, now, on to the monk himself. Again, like the fighter, limiting myself to core only, because if the foundation ain't solid, nothing makes it right.
Kung Fu Bob:
Human Monk 10
Str 15 (3) (+2 enhancement)
Dex 20 (5) (+2 racial, +2 level, +2 enhancement)
Con 14 (2) (+2 enhancement)
Int 10 (0)
Wis 20 (10) (+4 enhancement)
Cha 10 (0)
AC 28 (base 10 +3 armor +5 Dex +5 Wis +2 class +1 dodge +2 deflection)
HP 88 (+10 favored class)
Base Attack: +7/+2
Flurry Base Attack: +8/+8/+3/+3
+16/+11 unarmed 1d10+3/20 (+7 base +2 class +5 dex +1 feat +1 enhancement)No ki strike
+19/+14 unarmed 1d10+6/20 (+7 base +2 class +5 Dex +1 Feat +4 enhancement) With Ki Strike
Can take a -2 to hit to add 4 to damage
+18/+18/+13/+13 1d10+3/20 No ki strike
+21/+21/+16/+16 1d10+6/20 Ki strike
Can take a -3 to hit to add 6 to damage
Fort +11 Ref +14 Will +14
Skills 10 ranks perception, 40 skill ranks to distribute
Class Abilities: Flurry of blows, Stunning Fist (DC 20), Improved Evasion, Manuever Training, Still Mind, ki pool (10 points), Slow Fall 50 ft, high jump, purity of body, wholeness of body
Ok, so. There he goes.
The bestiary comparison thing:
Now, for the 5 questions:
So. Pick it over. Rip it apart. Tell me what ya see good/bad/otherwise. I built this guy rather generically, but I also did him Dex based, since we don't have one up yet. As a Str based monk, the damage numbers would shift a few points higher, but that isn't hard to calculate.
Um...he said use to Wis to hit, not Wis+Str to hit. Why are you double dipping on stats to hit?
Ok, home now so this will be easier. Just because I need to double check a couple things, I wanna post a 10th level fighter build.
Human Fighter 10
Str 22 (10)(+2 racial, +2 level, +2 enhancement)
Dex 16 (5) (+2 enhancement)
Con 16 (5) (+2 enhancement)
Int 10 (0)
Wis 12 (0) (+2 enhancement)
Cha 10 (0)
AC 31 (Base 10 +11 armor +4 shield +3 Dex +1 Dodge +1 Deflection +1 Natural Armor)
HP 109 (+10 favored class bonus)
Movement 30 ft
Attack +22 Longsword 1d8+13/19-20, when power attacking +19 Longsword 1d8+19
+15 Longbow 1d8+7
Fort +12 Ref +9 Will +9
Skills Perception +16 (10 ranks +6 feat) (20 ranks to spend)
Class Abilities: Bravery +3, Armor Training 2, Weapon Training (Heavy Blades +2, Bows +1)
So, here is a fighter, pretty standard sword and board stuff, not overly optimized.
And comparisions to the 2 monks already:
So, compared to Ciretose's more tanky build, he has 5 more AC and 21 more hit points. In terms of saves, the monk beats the fighter, although it is by a lower margin than you might expect.
His to hit is a full 6 points higher (only 5 when the monk flurries), with his minimum damage being 50% better, although their maximum is close, unless the fighter power attacks, at which point the fighters minimum damage is greater than the monks maximum. Even with the power attack penalty, his to hit his higher than the monks, they only get even if the monk can flurry and the fighter both power attacks and lunges at the same time.
When having to fight a mobile fight, between cleave and vital strike, the fighter has more options for what to do on his turn, although he cannot play hit and run with a monster, not that he really wants to anyway.
So, while the monk has some things the fighter can't match, like touch AC, speed, raw number of attacks on a full attack, I'd say overall that Ciretose's Monk is well below the actual fighter in combat performance. Enough so that I'd say he can't fill in? Not sure. My first instinct is to say yes, but more realistically is it just means that someone else in the party would have to take on the role of dealing and absorbing blows in melee, leaving the monk to skirmish and use what maneuvers he can get off. So that becomes a party composition thing, and this is just a martial to martial comparison.
So, in comparison to Dabblers monk, it is actually much closer. In some ways.
AC wise, the monk is 4 points below the fighter, and for hit points he is 36 points behind. In terms of saves, the fighter only does better in fort (again) and in the will save area gets put to shame.
Offensively, the fighter is ahead by a margin of +3 to hit with their favored attacks, but the damage for the monk is...well, the fighter doing minimum damage does more than the monk rolling maximum damage.
So, again, not as good as the fighter in any of the areas except saves, and in the damage department he is well outclassed by the fighter. Now, Dabblers monk pulls from non-core stuff and this is a CRB only fighter, but I think that illustrates the problem even more.
However, would Dabbler's monk make a good party member in a 4 person party? As a front liner, he is out. DPR isn't competitive there, and while the AC is solid, the HP makes it dangerous to get in and stay there. So...he wouldn't be a martial replacement, maybe a scout but this is more a comparison for the martial type slot.
So...neither will tread on a fighters toes. In one way or another, outside of saves, they come up short, by varying degrees in varying areas. Doesn't mean that can't fill a scout type role, but as a fighter alternate they aren't. And not saying that is bad, just an observation based on the comparison here.
And yes guys, I am getting mine up, I rethought a couple things, going to rework it and post it after this.
Apologies on the double post.
I don't think you would see that Ciretose. Limit it to unarmed strikes and monk weapons. Not so good for the wisdom casters now.
As to the second, well...so every monk needs to pay a feat tax for dex, or stretch his stats across 4 of the 6? So strength monks still are the way to go then in your opinion? Or do you dislike that and just aren't sure of another option?
I think your to worried about the monk being subpar to every other class in the CRB man. No fighting as good as the full BAB classes, no skill ranks like the skill monkeys, and obviously they aren't casters so no worries there. It just seems...haphazard, maybe unfocused.
So here's a question Ciretose, in your view of the monk, do you see them as being able to fill a slot in a 4 man group(what the game is based around) or do you see them as being a good 5th? Like I said earlier, it would help me evaluate your monk idea on an even ground instead of my own ideas of where the monk fits in.
True, most of a monks ranged weapons are either close in or not a high rate of fire. I don't think that conflicts with the class design though. They are high mobility, so closing range isn't a huge issue, and if it comes down to having to stand and fire over multiple rounds, I don't think the extra shots would do much when using a crossbow vs a bow. The monk, aside from Zen Archers aren't ranged attackers. Give them access to bows and all of a sudden you open up a whole different playstyle and balancing issue.
I love how the argument in defense of the summoner has been to invoke a tier 1 class and say "this is worse. How can you say this is overpowered?"
And summoners more than any other class can boost up their tier pretty easily. Between an archetype, intelligent eidolon design, and the right spell selection, that can boost themselves up into the lower end of tier 1.
As far as animal companion vs eidolon...both have their strengths, both have their weaknesses. All in all, I personally don't think either one is better than the other.
Shuriken =pSeriously though, they do get crossbows, and those aren't bad for a ranged weapon for a melee character, especially if the don't go the massive Strength route.
That's one of the things I am starting to like about the Wisdom to hit, it doesn't remove the need for Strength if you want a Strength based build, but unlike Ciretose's idea, it won't impose a feat tax or leave you feeling subpar. It still leaves the monk MAD, but no more than a paladin.
What is subjective about it?
At 1st level, 2nd level, and every four levels thereafter, a master of many styles may select a bonus style feat or the Elemental Fist feat. He does not have to meet the prerequisites of that feat, except the Elemental Fist feat.
First, it says what he may select as bonus feats. Style feats and Elemental Fist.
Then, it gives us two things. First, in italics, it states he ignores perquisites for style feats. Then after the comma, it states (the bolded parts) that there is an exception, the Elemental Fist feat. Not in relation to style feats, in relation to taking the feat itself.
That isn't subjective. It isn't implied meaning. It is stated directly.
@Dabbler: Doh, yeah, forgot that was added to the list at 10. Used to seeing Medusas Fist, specially on a stunning build.
Like I said, your making me rethink viewpoint that Wisdom to hit is to much for monks. I think stunning fist and the monks usage of it is something they bring to the table, if they could hit and get it off. Your Wisdom to Hit clearly boosts that, so I am starting to come around =)
@Ciretose: I don't believe in the classic 4, haven't in a long time, but I do think every class needs a role they fill well. But I also think that role needs to be big enough they can be used in a 4 person party. The core classes really need to meet that expectation. So does this monk tweak of yours allow for that? As a 5th party member he would do ok, but as one of the 4...not so sure.
Got my build done, just need to get time to post it.
Shuriken Nekogami wrote:
Except, with the exception of a few feats that require you to pick a specific weapon (many of which a barbarian gets as well) the fighter's feats function with any weapon. His weapon training functions with anything in the same group, and he can select multiple weapon groups as he goes up in level, so that isn't as much of a DPR loss as you think. The fighter is hands down better with armor, he moves as fast in adamantium full plate as a barbarian would in mithril full plate, and can add as much or more dex to his AC.
So, yes, fighters can do quite a lot as generalists, they just meaner when specialized. The barbarian is a much more focused class, while weapon may not matter as much (except in many barbarian builds I've seen it does) it does matter. You give a barbarian a short sword when he is used to using a great sword and no, he isn't tooled but he loses a good bit of DPR. The fighter in the same situation? No where near as much.
I know it seems like an odd thing to say, but fighters take more thought to get the most out of the class than barbarians, paladins and rangers. The other martial classes come focused out of the box for you. They don't require you to make choices as often, that can impact how you perform as much. They are, of all the non full caster classes, a toolbox character, it is how you stick that toolbox and use what is in it that matters, not what just gets given to you because your class choice makes the decision for you.
And before someone says it...
No, I am not saying the other martial classes are easy or no brainers to make effective. I am just saying that out of the box, many of their choices have been made for them is all. They still get choices, and you can bone yourself making bad choices, they just get less choices to make in areas that can drastically impact their gameplay.
A twofer lol.
@Dabbler: It looks good, the only big thing I see is that Improved Critical isn't a valid feat choice till 11th unless I am missing something. I'm at work, so I can't crunch numbers like I did with Ciretose's, but the AC looks about like what I would expect, same with the to hit. The stunning fist DC is iffy to me. With just a couple basic buffs, you get an extra +3-5 to hit, and your hit % goes up, so that 60% or better stun rate would kick in. Not sure that is an issue though, as it is limited usage and doesn't effect all creatures. Your making me rethink my point of view on wisdom to hit. I'll try and crunch numbers for it like I did for Ciretose's when I get home tonight.
@Ciretose: I like version 2 better. He is more well rounded, not so much sunk into an item or two. The boosts to hit combat stats by spreading that wealth around look good. But...
I have to ask, what role in the basic 4 would this guy fill? Not a tank, you said that yourself, not a caster, not enough points for skill monkey, Charisma is kinda low for the face...so...scout? Does he have the skill points to do that role well enough? Or is the point not to make a monk that fits in with the 4 person party concept but 5 person party concept? I'm asking, because it would help on how I evaluate the stuff.
I've got most of a build ready to go using the monk revision I did, as soon as I get time to post it I will, although it won't look as pretty as you two's
Fighters do have a gimmick. It is sheer versatility and capability. Remove the morale bonuses, and barbarian rage is shut down. Not evil, paladin smite is no good. Rangers get a little love at higher levels on this by spending limited resources (spells) but no favored enemy no love. Fighter? Good 24/7 with any weapon he can lay hands on. Better with ones he likes.
If the feats seem boring, then they will seem that way for any feat you take. On the other hand, if you start looking at feat combos, it gets crazy what a fighter can do. The static boosts the fighter gets are on 24/7/365, to shut them down you have to kill him. They are not situational. All those feats build on those boosts, allowing the fighter to create situations or take advantage of situations for better effect. And he gets enough free combat feats that taking 2-4 non combat feats doesn't gimp him. Depending on the campaign, it is possible to spend all his non-fighter feat selections on non combat feats and still live up to doing his job.
I get what your saying Memorax, the feats are passive, they aren't as spectacular individually as a barbarians rage, or a paladins smite or lay on hands. And your right, they aren't. Collectively though, they add up in an impressive way. And that is something I know some people have a hard time seeing, because the fighter is so versatile. They don't come with a built in focus like the other martial classes, so it is easy to spread the class to thin or try to do to many things and have nothing but 20 levels of pure combat feats and be going "Well, that's a pretty narrow class." Not saying you are doing that, it could just be you prefer classes that have "special" abilities like rage, lay on hands, smite, or any of the other myriad activated abilities classes can get. And that is fine, it isn't badwrong or anything like that. But I hope maybe I gave you a different way to look at a fighter or at least something to think about =)
@Gnomezrule: Fighters do have a schtick, it is being able to fight in any style or manner they choose and be great at it. And still be able to switch to a different style and not be horrible at it.
I had assumed that hit and run was what your build was going for, yeah. But even with that, the giant can keep you in reach, and the dragons flight movement far outstrips yours. So it doesn't really fix any of the issues except the DR one. It mitigates the hit issue, some, as you went Str as your big stat, which also helps with damage. It just seems like as a whole, he put all his wealth into doing one thing, and even then he is, at best, mediocre. Yes, with party support and buffs (very likely, it is a group game) he gets up to the level where an unbuffed martial class would be. But that is the problem.
I think it is a good start. If it is coupled with 6+Int skill points a level it makes a viable rogue substitute. If the goal is to be a martial substitute, I'm thinking maybe increase the rate of enhancement bonus gain, and possibly rework the build to be finesse based over Strength based.
I am at work, but I will see if I can get a build up of the monk revision I did.
What I think the fighter needs is feats that scale. Just like spells do. Either the feats get better the higher in level a fighter becomes. Or say if a player takes dodge he has access to more powerful dodge feats. The fighter beyond feats has not that much going for him imo. Dealing damage other melee type classes can do the same. Maybe a little less effective yet they can do it. Armor optimization depending on how much 3.5. you allow in a PF other melee classes can get access to them too. Bravery a okay ability yet nothing imo to write home about. Weapon training decent ability. Yet beyond that a fighter has imo nothing relaly interesting. Barbarians have rage powers. Paladins have mercye. At least in 2E AD&D a fighter could get a keep and followers. The problem with me is that it's not that I dislike fighters I just find them bland as a class. Before anyone tries the usual copout of trying to make it that "it's not the class it's just you" BS. Sorry but I play my classes to the fullest both interms of roleplaying and damage output. I'm still finding the fighter class the most boring in both 3.5. and Pathfinder. With Barbarian and Paladin just more to look forward too as you go up in level. Fighters are just the same thing over and over again.
If fighters seem the same over and over, doesn't a barbarian feel the same? Oh, look, I leveled, I get to rage a lil bit longer and ohhh, I got new rage power. Paladin is no different. Fighters get feats. If you feel feats are lacking, I think you may want to go look at some of the feat chains, especially the longer ones. Fighters get those, easily usually. Plus the fighter only feats. A fighters class abilities synergize well with combat feats, and they get a lot of mileage out of them. The fighter is one of those classes where the parts individually don't look to impressive, but as a whole they end up that way.
By the same token, it also means fighters aren't going to be everyone's cup of tea. Some folks prefer the idea of divine might, or being hyper pissed as the source of their coolness, and that's OK. Doesn't make those classes a replacement for the fighter. Doesn't make the fighter limited any more than they are to kicking monster butt and taking names. Just means they do it by skill, cunning, and strength of arms.
It meets the minimum standards you set out (kinda, I'll explain further down) but to do it, you spent every last gold on items. You have nothing for consumables, food, shelter, nothing. I know, it isn't a standard you set forth, but any build I look at that's one of the first things I check.
Anyway, on the other stuff.
Against a piscodaemon, you have +15 to hit vs his AC of 24, so 55% of the time. His Fort Save is +14, so he saves vs your stunning fist 70% of the time. Thankfully you have the holy amulet, so his DR of 10/good is ignored. If you had gone the flaming/something route, you could still punch through, but it would be noticeable on your output.
In return, his attacks are at a +18 vs your AC of 23, so he hits you 75% of the time. He can poison, with a DC of 22 to resist, so your looking at 55% chance to save vs it. You don't have DR, so his attacks don't worry about that.
Against an Adult White Dragon, it's worse. Much worse. His AC of 27 means you hit only on a 12 up, so you hit 40% of the time. His Fort save is +13, so if you hit your odds of stunning at 35% aren't horrible. His DR is magic so that's a wash.
When he attacks you though...he hits 80% of the time itch his best attack, his bite. And he has reach with it, so AoOs are something to think about. His breath weapon is DC 21, so half the time your fine, he other half your happy you have improved evasion. No DR so his 80% hit rate will be painful.
Against a fire giant, you hit his AC of 24 55% of the time. He has a Fort save of +14 so your stunning fist has a 30% chance of effecting him. No DR so that's a wash there.
He hits you 85% of the time with his first swing. He has no special abilities really other than reach, so you have to worry about AoOs and that negates some of your mobility advantage.
That's just 3, on my tablet so not wanting to put a bigger wall of text.
The short and sweet version comes down to its an improvement, but fighting at his weight class he is barely, barely at par. Possibly subpar considering that against many opponents his mobility can be negated and their ability to hurt him outstrips his ability to hurt them.
So, I'd say its a good start, but not quite enough. Also, this illustrates why the stunning fist DC can afford to be higher. It only applies if you hit, and at a 60%ish hit rate it needs to be more reliable.
Personally, I think the only thing stopping a fighter from being more than just a combat machine is people's perspective. You don't have to spend every last feat you get on combat ability with a fighter, that is part of the reason they get a slew of bonus combat feats. The whole idea of "if my character isn't perfectly optimized for DPR he is a handicap" is a mental handicap people put on themselves. As long as you are doing your part in combat, the campaign won't implode if you took feats to help outside of combat, or you bumped your int/cha some for some skill points or to be a little more sociable.
Meh. Fighters aren't replaceable with other martial classes. Paladins, rangers, barbarians and all have a place. They can substitute for a fighter, but they aren't a fighter. So saying "If I wanted to be more than a fighter I'd roll a <insert class here> " just tells me that pretty shinies distract you from the sheer versatility and potential a fighter represents. A paladin is always a paladin, smiting evil is his schtick, rangers will always be rangers, favored enemies and scouting is what they do, barbarians don't quit being barbarians, raging is what they do.
Fighters? They can be whatever your imagination and skills at building characters want them to be. That's what the fighter does.
Well, the archetypes for summoners don't help the issue really. Once you add those into the mix it is pretty easy to take the class from an upper tier character to a top tier setting a curve character.
While the base class itself isn't hugely imbalanced, it is easy to game the system with. Some of the archetypes make it easier/more gamable. There is a reason I'll only let folks who can play well with others play one.
As to the ops question...
Do you really feel like you need a hard counter like that to the player in question? And I do mean hard counter. You are essentially taking his eidolon out of the fight with no save. Outside of preventing you hitting with it, nothing he can do except try and remove the conditions.
If it feels like the guy is disrupting the game/hogging the spotlight/ruining others fun, have you tried talking to them about it?
And yes, I'm assuming your asking this because it is an issue in a game you are running...
You misunderstand what I am saying.
Fast Learner wrote:
Benefit: When you gain a level in a favored class, you gain both +1 hit point and +1 skill rank instead of choosing either one or the other benefit or you can choose an alternate class reward.
It reads "When you gain a level in a favored class, you gain both +1 hit point and +1 skill rank instead of choosing either one or the other benefit or you can choose an alternate class reward." So, when you take a level in a favored class, you can get the alternate class reward as normal, or you can take the skill rank and hit point option. That is all it does. It doesn't allow for you to take a skill rank and an alternate reward, or (by way of other feats) two alternate class rewards. It just alters the hit point and skill rank options to include both.
I know, it's kind of a bummer, I thought the same as you at first till I went back and reread it with my rules lawyer mentality going.
You said some 3pp material was available?
You might want to look at Supergenius Games Magister/Magus(it came out before the magus class, so they are renaming it magister) class.
It isn't 3/4 BAB but it does have the nifty ability to pick up spells from multiple spell lists(within limits), and a few other nifty tricks. If it sounds interesting enough, it is on the d20pfsrd site, definitely worth buying the book for IMO.
A lot of what has been said above is dead on.
But I also think it is because as a class, it is very mechanically complex, thus requiring a good to great or better knowledge and mastery of the systems for the whole game. It also requires a DM that can either trust the player to not try and break the campaign or be able to audit the eidolon frequently to make sure it is build right.
While I love the class, I don't allow it in my games unless the player has good systems mastery and has demonstrated it, shown an ability to share the spotlight even if that means dumbing things down a bit, and is willing to accept that any shifts he wants to make in an eidolons evolutionary pool needs to have its own separate sheet that I can double check before the game so it doesn't bog down gameplay if he shifts his points.
Restrictive? Maybe, but as I said, incredibly mechanical class, using large amounts of the game system. I have yet to have a player complain about the restrictions though.
And yeah, I agree wraithstrike, I wish they were closer to astral constructs myself, although I think that would step on my shapers toes...
Mom, barring something changing since the last time I looked at it, fast learner only has 2 settings.
1 additional skill rank and hit point per level in a favor erred class
It isn't a combine them however you want feat, it just presents the bonus skill rank and hit point as one option instead of two.
LoreKeeper, if monks used their unarmed damage with a cestus, they would have a weapon that did 2d10/19-20 base. Before enchantment. So it could end up 2d10/17-20 with a +5 enhancement bonus and another +5 in weapon properties. Oh, dual wield able and usable in flurries. So full str mod on damage for all attacks.
Just a little bit overpowered you think?
Well, ok, little bit isn't exactly the term I'd use but hey, I'm trying to be flexible with the definition of overpowered here, as up thread there is a good example of how different people opinions can be on power level.
I think 1 and 2 are needlessly restrictive.
Being able to hit more than 50% is good, capping it at 75% though..why? Being able to hit is only one small function of things, and an arbitrary cap on that won't tell you if a fix is broken or not enough, just that it has a certain hit %.
Same with #2, while stunning fists DC doesn't need to get out of hand, putting a cap on its DC seems wrong. It has limited uses per day, requires you to hit, and requires you to do damage, in addition to them failing a saving throw. Lets not penalize a concept just because it might make stunning fist better.
3 makes good sense, as a get in there and not hang back type, AC needs to be able to measure up without sacrificing to much offense/utility.
4 seems ok as long as we use an average fighter =) They being considered the gold standard and all.
5 is kinda the point I thought lol.
I could maybe see the point in adding something about leaving feat slots open. Depending on level, just to show what a non optimized build would do on average. If we are comparing them to averages, and standard anything, optimized examples won't illustrate as well any potential flaws or any potential brokenness.
As a side thing, do we want a stock, average fighter build at the various levels to use as a benchmark? And likewise, maybe pick a select few monsters of the appropriate CR so we have set benchmarks vs various critters and DR's?
I've always gone by the following rule:
If you have proficiency in it, you know the basic, for example a reach weapon, trip weapon, anything special about using it like a whip and damage vs armored opponents. You can determine if the weilder is less proficient than you (BAB 3 or more less than you or non proficient), about as proficient as you (BAB +/- 2 of yours) or more proficient (BAB 3 or more than you). That doesn't cover feats and all, as I consider that a little beyond the scope of what you can tell without seeing the target in combat or engaging the target.
I actually did a monk/fighter hybrid using cesti as his weapons. MoMS doesn't lose much going that route, and since I was interested in seeing how the build worked out at higher levels, I statted it up all the way to 20 at various levels just to get an idea of the rough spots.
I get the devs not wanting to give monk unarmed damage to a weapon. I really do. A 2d10/19-20 dual wield able weapon that is light? Little over the top possibly, even if static bonuses are better overall, rolled damage like that would still play a part. The brass knuckles I don't get, because technically, they weren't really any different from gauntlets before they altered the knuckles.
That being said, as much as I like the unarmed theme of the monk, it would be nice to see the ability to, in the core monk (no archetypes needed) have weapons as a viable option. They used to in 1e. Got a damage bonus to certain weapons they used. Limited attacks, but bonus damage. I wouldn't mind seeing that come back in some form.
The monk's role:
Role: Monks excel at overcoming even the most daunting perils, striking where it's least expected, and taking advantage of enemy vulnerabilities. Fleet of foot and skilled in combat, monks can navigate any battlefield with ease, aiding allies wherever they are needed most.
You know, back in 1e, anything outside of the core 4 classes was put into a type. Fighter types, wizard types, cleric types, thief types. The classes under those types were good alternates to one of the four core classes for filling in those roles in the party.
Guess what type the monk fell under?
Nope, not fighter. Thief. It is kind of amusing really, all the other classes stayed true to the types they were originally. Except, apparently, the monk. I've been thinking about it, and I am starting to think that maybe instead of trying to turn the monk into a more martial class, a fighter type if you will, maybe the focus should be on making the monk more of a thief type, a good alternate choice for the rogue. And yeah, I know, it is a little more complex than that, but I really have been starting to wonder if maybe looking at it from a different role perspective might bring up some newer ideas instead of the same ones that always get tossed around.
That...would kinda underpower the monk. As things stand with the rules now, they can get a +5 enhancement bonus and special weapon abilities now, between an AoMF, other magic items, and spell buffs. So by dropping their unarmed damage, they end up hitting more, but for far, far less than before. So while it helps them land more hits, and go through more DR, overall it is a very minor increase.
On a side note, you want me to see about building and statting up a monk using the ki pool idea I had?
Tels, I think is has more to do with Ashiels derailing of threads and attitude towards the derails. Just what it seems like from the other thread.
Not saying either one is right or wrong, just that it has some basis.
And yeah, I do think it seems like for someone to defend a point so vigorously it is either because they play that way (I'm guessing Ashiel doesn't though) or they just have a serious need to win and be right in an discussion/debate (my guess on why Ashiel defends it the way they do.) Either way can rub folks wrong, heck, I took a day off of even looking at the boards just to avoid seeing Ashiels name come up =)
Heh, still going. Gotta love message boards.
Whenever you read something, you end up interpreting it. Usually, that happens because you know the point of what your reading, be it entertainment, learning, or whatever. Basically, you know the intent, and that alters how you interpret what you read.
So, we know the intent in general of the PF CRB. It is to provide a framework of rules so that people can sit down together and play a game. Even better, we know the intent of the developers in this specific case, because they have stated it.
So, we can either read the rules with that intent in mind to see if they support it as written, or we can read the rules ignoring that intent and then wonder why we end up disappointed.
Ashiel pointed out plenty of places unarmed strikes as a general attack are brought up, with no mention of monks or IUS. Going solely by that, then no, by RAW monks and haste don't play well together.
But hat isn't everything in the rule books. I pointed out a specific place monks unarmed attacks and IUS are called out by name, that then tells you to see natural attacks. Natural attacks pretty clearly state they happen with natural weapons. So, considering the intent of the developers, it is reasonable to conclude that monks fighting unarmed and characters with the IUS feat treat their unarmed attacks as a subset of natural weapons, much like reach weapons, or trip weapons etc are subsets of other kinds of weapons. They follow the rules in general, with their own specific set of rules spelling out how they interact differently with the rules.
So, then it becomes does that conclusion violate the RAW anywhere? Well, not that I have seen. And I have looked. The only place it comes close is one feat, except it was made clear that that feat in no way interacts with monks or IUS.
It is just another way of looking at it. Is it right? Well, I think so but obviously some people don't, which could be for a variety of reasons. Personally, I hope it's just because they are bored and this is just an interesting way to kill time for them.