Query: Monk and being underpowered

Ninja in the Rye

I never liked lock gauntlets because it takes out that hand from being useful so I hope you are always picking the weapon cord of course until it gets easily sundered. My bad guys aren't afraid to provoke an attack of opportunity every now and than just to hamper my PC's when they are disarm blocking me.

I say I like weapon cords because you just have to hit those to sunder them. I think they have 0 hardness and 1 hp. Atleast Lock Gauntlets can take a hit, but they stop you from grabbing something if you have a second weapon or a shield or funniest thing was one of my players wear two lock gauntlets and made a dash for an evil artifact that he couldn't grab.

So in order to disarm a weapon user you need to succeed on a Sunder maneuver and a Disarm maneuver, while to "disarm" an AoMF you need to only succeed on a lone Sunder or Steal maneuver, which one is it that is supposed to have the no disarm "advantage" again?

Monks don't need Double Slice they get full strength on all there flurry of blows, and monks don't need Quick Draw assuming they are using there fists which makes them worthless feats compared to the monk. I agree that Two Weapon Rend is an awesome feat since it's free damage.

All of these feats are still better than 2 Weapon Rend
Improved Grapple, grappling and doing monk damage at the sametime
Improved Disarm, this one feat kills a two weapon ranger unless he's wearing lock gauntlets, because I would provoke to cut your cord just to kill you.
Improved Trip, Trip there goes your turn and provoke when you get up

Those 3 feats are easily better than Two Weapon Rend if you don't have a weapon in your hand or you are on your back. That feat is no good if you can't swing with both weapons.

if the item is hidden you can't sunder or steal it so if it's under his shirt or robe it's hidden. Which than becomes the GM's call and I'm pretty positive any GM in his right mind is going to call under his shirt hidden to avoid having the same situation put back into his face when a party wants to perform the same task.

The other unavoidable problem is that you're wearing an amulet of mighty fists. That means you aren't wearing an amulet of natural armor. That means your AC is lagging.

Monks don't need Double Slice they get full strength on all there flurry of blows, and monks don't need Quick Draw assuming they are using there fists which makes them worthless feats compared to the monk. I agree that Two Weapon Rend is an awesome feat since it's free damage.

All of these feats are still better than 2 Weapon Rend
Improved Grapple, grappling and doing monk damage at the sametime
Improved Disarm, this one feat kills a two weapon ranger unless he's wearing lock gauntlets, because I would provoke to cut your cord just to kill you.
Improved Trip, Trip there goes your turn and provoke when you get up

Those 3 feats are easily better than Two Weapon Rend if you don't have a weapon in your hand or you are on your back. That feat is no good if you can't swing with both weapons.

Improved Grapple does not allow you to damage a foe on the same turn as grappling them.

Improved Disarm disarms ONE of that TWF-ing Ranger's weapons. He can still fight with the other. I have no idea what you were trying to say in that second sentence. It has no effect on monsters that don't use weapons. Disarm is probably the worst combat maneuver for a PC to specialize in, hands down.

Trip works pretty well, up until you get into the multitude of creatures that are highly resistant (or even immune to) that maneuver.

And all of this assumes you can beat the monster's rapidly increasing CMDs, some of which can be truly horrendously high.

None of those Feats are better than Two Weapon Rend is for a TWF-er.

Too bad there's nothing in the rules about shirts blocking a sunder attempt.

If situational is the order of the day then it should be pointed out that Improved Trip is worthless against things that fly (and not much better against things that cast spells or things that have such a high attack bonus that they're nearly auto hitting).

Improved Disarm is near worthless against spell casters and natural attack users.

Improved Grapple has the unfortunate side effect of you grappling with big scary monsters.

You can't attack something you don't see which means if the amulet is covered up you can't attack it because you can't see it. So you don't know it's there you can't say I'm going to attack his amulet because I think he has one.

If a spellcaster has a melee in there face than someone did something wrong because that's not suppose to happen, and I'm sure that melee isn't going to be trying to disarm the spellcaster just beating him senseless. Also if you Grapple a monster and you are winning than good for you that monster can't attack or bite until he breaks grapple, but you can do your unarmed damage to that monster while you maintain grapple and everyone else can hit that monster and you will not risk being hit while they are swinging.

The only way to hide an object is with the Sleight of Hand skill, you can't use a hidden object.

In my opinion, the opinion that the monk is under-powered comes from a purely statistical view point that doesn't take real world situations into account. You can't quantify the number of times someone will avoid an AoO due to a monk's special abilities so they must be useless. You can't put a number on how useful being immune to diseases can be, so it must be useless. The monk's increased speed means they'll make less stealth checks to sneak across a field, but how many less, and how often will it happen? You can't really put a number on that, so it's never considered.

Some arguments say that since 4 classes can do part of what a monk can do better, the monk is useless. Or they'll say that since in an arena deathmatch, the fighter will win, so a monk must be under-powered.

In my experience, a Monk's strongest attributes come from the eclectic abilities that make is extremely useful in actual adventuring. Stuff you can't just say "This will be 14.6 times more useful". Then they'll argue that math doesn't lie all the while misleading you into thinking that since the Fighter's BAB is 20 and the monk's is only 15 the fighter will hit 25% more times, leaving off the fact that the average AC is 14 meaning they'll both hit 95% of the time.

This argument comes up A LOT, and what you'll find is that it's pretty useless. Those that think the monk is under-powered, will ALWAYS think that, those that don't never will.

Myself and the others have posted actual game experiences before. That was not just an excel spreadsheet talking. In short it was experience + math, and since NOBODY was able to tell us how to make the monk better in our described scenarios, that were "normal", I see no reason to not continue to believe it. If you think we are incorrect I can take the time to find and repost those scenarios when I get home.

Also if you Grapple a monster and you are winning than good for you that monster can't attack or bite until he breaks grapple, but you can do your unarmed damage to that monster while you maintain grapple and everyone else can hit that monster and you will not risk being hit while they are swinging.

Instead of attempting to break or reverse the grapple, you can take any action that doesn't require two hands to perform, such as cast a spell or make an attack or full attack with a light or one-handed weapon against any creature within your reach, including the creature that is grappling you.

Grappling may or may not shut down natural attacks, depending on your GM's ruling on the "handedness" of natural attacks.

Continuous effects don't stop working just because someone can't see them. Sleight of hand is used to sneak in small objects and you could still use say a dagger and than hide it again after use, but that is different from an amulet. Continuous effect item only stop working when they aren't being worn it never shuts off. When you enter a combat situation every ones items aren't in the open for everyone to see at this point you are now grasping at straws.

Now what you could do is ask your DM do I see anything around his neck and the DM would probably have you roll a perception check, but you would have to go through the opponents shirt first.

Ranger is going to have a problem in that fight if the monk disarms the ranger right away and hopes he doesn't keep pulling weapons or pick one of them back up. The monk can win if he succeeds in disarming that ranger and maybe even trip him a few times.

-----

Although a monk trying to disarm a fighter well depending on the archtype probably I haven't looked because I believe some fighters get bonus against Disarm fighter will look at monk like he's crazy and just beat him like a red headed step child.

Grappling may or may not shut down natural attacks, depending on your GM's ruling on the "handedness" of natural attacks.

The only attack that would probably work would be a bite, but they would take a -2 to that attack and if they use weapon finesse than they take a -4 to dex so that's another -2 for a total of -4.

All Natural Attacks should work in a Grapple.

There aren't any two-handed Natural Attacks, they're all either one-handed or no-handed.

And speaking of Weapon Finesse, Natural Attacks are considered Light weapons, There's absolutely nothing preventing a creature with natural attacks from making a full attack with them.

On the "Monk vs Ranger" bit:

1.) The Ranger can beat down the Monk just as well with one weapon as two, TWF-ers are less vulnerable to Disarms than most other fighting styles. And again, this is assuming that the Monk's Combat Maneuver Check beats the Ranger's CMD. And if that Disarm attempt fails, he's in for a world of hurt when the nearby Ranger unloads on him with all of his attacks, while he hasn't laid a finger on him.

2.) Why is the Monk fighting another PC (since TWF-ing Ranger NPCs are rare or nonexistent)? This is not a PvP game.

O look, its THIS thread again.

I guess nobody plays PFS or most of the Paizo APs anymore, because the majority of those I have found have human adversaries, and even at APL +1 or APL +2 encounters most humanoids are prone to being tripped, disarmed, dirty tricked, and grappled.

The monk in the Curse of the Crimson Throne game I am running pretty much rules the battlefield. Does he KILL everything? No, not really, the 2 fighters do that...but when the enemy is prone, disarmed, blinded and sickened because the Monk pretty much bullrushed the enemy and tripped him and the 2 fighters are +4 to hit a prone target and the enemy is -4 to his AC, why even the iterative attacks beat the bejeebus out of my BBEG.

Lets not even discuss the APL - 4 mooks.

But no, Monks are horribly broken, every other class clearly is way better, and you must be a retard or purposely enjoy gimped characters to play one solely for the flavor.

Quick, go back to the front page of this thread and figure out how many times the 3/4 BAB monk is compared to 4/4 BAB classes.

In the first 15 replies.

LOL @ "but why cant monk solo Tiamat like my barbarian can?!?!?" people.

Continuous effects don't stop working just because someone can't see them. Sleight of hand is used to sneak in small objects and you could still use say a dagger and than hide it again after use, but that is different from an amulet. Continuous effect item only stop working when they aren't being worn it never shuts off. When you enter a combat situation every ones items aren't in the open for everyone to see at this point you are now grasping at straws.

Now what you could do is ask your DM do I see anything around his neck and the DM would probably have you roll a perception check, but you would have to go through the opponents shirt first.

Ranger is going to have a problem in that fight if the monk disarms the ranger right away and hopes he doesn't keep pulling weapons or pick one of them back up. The monk can win if he succeeds in disarming that ranger and maybe even trip him a few times.

Sorry, I do not agree, you can't protect yourself from sunder attempts simply by wearing a shirt. Just like you can't toss a cheap tunic on over your armor or wrap your shield in cloth and suddenly have it be exempt from sunder.

You might as well have a character toss a bed sheet over their head and declare them to be blocking line of effect.

I don't play PFS, but I do play Paizo APs.

I can count on the fingers of one hand the number of times I've fought completely humanoid creatures (i.e. "PC races"). There is one I've played with a bunch of Monstrous Humanoids, but they have other things to make up for their lack of resistance to combat maneuvers, not least among them spell-like abilities and a number of immunities and resistances to other things.

If the enemy is prone, blinded, and sickened the Monk took 3 turns (and two uses of Stunning Fist) doing so. Was everyone sitting there with their thumb up their ass while the Monk was taking all these actions?

You should actually take the time to, y'know, READ before you mouth off on something by the way. Monk is being compared to full BaB classes because every other martial frontliner (which it has been claimed the Monk is) has full BaB and at least d10 hit dice.

Monk has neither of these things. And he doesn't even have the 6 level Arcane or 9th level Divine spellcasting to make up the deficit.

It's not about "Soloing teh baws lawl", it's about being a credible front line threat to anything in melee combat, especially after level 9-10 when Combat Maneuver builds become distinctly lackluster at best, for ANY class.

O look, its THIS thread again.

I guess nobody plays PFS or most of the Paizo APs anymore, because the majority of those I have found have human adversaries, and even at APL +1 or APL +2 encounters most humanoids are prone to being tripped, disarmed, dirty tricked, and grappled.

The monk in the Curse of the Crimson Throne game I am running pretty much rules the battlefield. Does he KILL everything? No, not really, the 2 fighters do that...but when the enemy is prone, disarmed, blinded and sickened because the Monk pretty much bullrushed the enemy and tripped him and the 2 fighters are +4 to hit a prone target and the enemy is -4 to his AC, why even the iterative attacks beat the bejeebus out of my BBEG.

Lets not even discuss the APL - 4 mooks.

But no, Monks are horribly broken, every other class clearly is way better, and you must be a retard or purposely enjoy gimped characters to play one solely for the flavor.

Quick, go back to the front page of this thread and figure out how many times the 3/4 BAB monk is compared to 4/4 BAB classes.

In the first 15 replies.

LOL @ "but why cant monk solo Tiamat like my barbarian can?!?!?" people.

If you're going to toss out anecdotal evidence and then act like it proves anything, then at least give basic info about it. For example, what level are they at, is it a standard 15 point buy?

I've got a monk loving player in my game and I don't really see what's broken about them he runs up a storm beating bad guys senseless. So I'm personally think these boards don't know how to run a monk sense I seem to have one player running up a monk storm. I also have others of my players kicking a lot of butt with monks and the "math" that these boards offer aren't actual numbers because all of your numbers seem to be less than my monk fanatic and my less monk fanatic player's.

Given the number of people on here who post about how they found the monk sucked in practice, as well as in theory, and given how much experience they have in the game, I think it far more likely that your monk's are either (a) not following the rules or (b) you are playing to their few strengths.

But by all means post up these builds and show us how it's done, if you feel that confident.

O look, its THIS thread again.

Sad isn't it? No matter how often the point is proven, people still do not believe it if they don't want to.

I guess nobody plays PFS or most of the Paizo APs anymore, because the majority of those I have found have human adversaries, and even at APL +1 or APL +2 encounters most humanoids are prone to being tripped, disarmed, dirty tricked, and grappled.

The monk in the Curse of the Crimson Throne game I am running pretty much rules the battlefield. Does he KILL everything? No, not really, the 2 fighters do that...but when the enemy is prone, disarmed, blinded and sickened because the Monk pretty much bullrushed the enemy and tripped him and the 2 fighters are +4 to hit a prone target and the enemy is -4 to his AC, why even the iterative attacks beat the bejeebus out of my BBEG.

Funny, I ran a really good monk through this AP and after 7th level I found my relevance to the party steadily in decline. Sure, against humanoid foes I was very effective, but they got rarer as the levels rose. Maybe you just haven't got that far. Be more than happy to trade stat-blocks though, if you have a secret way of making the monk work no-one else has thought of.

Lets not even discuss the APL - 4 mooks.

Yes, the monk is as good at beating up inconsequential threats as everyone else. But the chips really count in the boss-fights, and the monk does a lot worse in those.

Monks are not Martials.

Martials are not casters.

Casters are not skirmishers.

Monks ARE skirmishers. (Just like Rogues!)

Therefore monks are neither casters nor martials.

Please, people, try comparing apples with, oh I dont know, apples maybe. NOT Saturn-V rockets.

Dabbler every time one of us presents the "show us how" challenge nobody takes the offer up. Don't hold your breath.

Dabbler every time one of us presents the "show us how" challenge nobody takes the offer up. Don't hold your breath.

So far I've never seen anyone who says monks suck put up a character either, but I've seen them put up some random numbers with no backing. If you put up a character I'll put one up otherwise I don't feel like I need to. I know monks don't suck and I'm positive you have to be doing something wrong. If you do want me to put up a character than you make a level 8 character and I'll do one.

wraithstrike wrote:

Dabbler every time one of us presents the "show us how" challenge nobody takes the offer up. Don't hold your breath.

So far I've never seen anyone who says monks suck put up a character either, but I've seen them put up some random numbers with no backing. If you put up a character I'll put one up otherwise I don't feel like I need to. I know monks don't suck and I'm positive you have to be doing something wrong. If you do want me to put up a character than you make a level 8 character and I'll do one.

Putting up a bunch of character builds rarely helps either side imo. Most of the numbers put up have had backing. Its okay for a monk to do well. Its bad to claim that everyone else is doing something wrong though.

Monks are not Martials.

Martials are not casters.

Casters are not skirmishers.

Monks ARE skirmishers. (Just like Rogues!)

What, exactly, is the role of a 'skirmisher'?

Rogues have always been categorised as skill-monkeys, which monks are not.

Skirmisher is often described as a mobile warrior, and barbarians are great mobile warriors. Monks are not - they get the mobile bit, but when they use it their 3/4 BAB lets them down badly. Rogues have skills and sneak attack, but that's more of a scout/assassin role. Monks aren't really good at that either.

Therefore monks are neither casters nor martials.

Please, people, try comparing apples with, oh I dont know, apples maybe. NOT Saturn-V rockets.

I think you're just trying to invent a definition to avoid the fact that monks are meant to fight, can't do a lot except fight, and suck at it compared to other classes intended to fight.

wraithstrike wrote:

Dabbler every time one of us presents the "show us how" challenge nobody takes the offer up. Don't hold your breath.

So far I've never seen anyone who says monks suck put up a character either, but I've seen them put up some random numbers with no backing. If you put up a character I'll put one up otherwise I don't feel like I need to. I know monks don't suck and I'm positive you have to be doing something wrong. If you do want me to put up a character than you make a level 8 character and I'll do one.

You cannot have looked at many monk threads then. Gimme a while (not at my home PC ATM) and I'll post up a few builds, then you can tell me where I'm going wrong.

When a monk does Flurry of Blows they are treated as having a full BAB for all of there Flurry of Blows attacks. The only time a monk uses a 3/4 BAB is when they can not make a Flurry of Blows such as when they charge.

I can't figure out how no one recognizes the monk does have access to a Full BAB when they are using unarmed or a monk weapon in a Flurry.

A level 8 Monk and a level 8 Two Weapon Ranger have the same to hit bonus, and the same number of attacks and probably the same strength score to if I made a monk or a ranger my str would be 14 either way.

Monk
Flurry of Blows for a monk = +6 bab +2 str +2 amulet (which I don't believe it's a stretch to say a monk would have a +2 amulet at this level)

Ranger
Ranger Full Attack = +6 (since he's using 2 weapons it's not a +8) +2 str +2 weapons

they both equal +10 to hit, they both have 4 attacks

First I want everyone on the boards to admit the monk does get a Full BAB when the monk makes a Full attack action with a Flurry. The only time the monk gets 3/4 BAB is when they have to make a charge attack.

Monks are amazing.
Fast movement speed. Good skills, amazing saves, full BAB, best CMD, great CMB.

If your DM is cool, you can cast Masterwork Transformation on yourself and give yourself all sorts of yummy enchantments.

No you can't (no spellcasting :P) and even if your DM is cool, he's being cool by changing the game from how it was designed, meaning that really doesn't play into a discussion about monks-as-written.

EDIT: that, and their 'Full BAB' only counts when full-attacking, meaning you're f+!@ed out of it when actually USING that speed (which is an enhancement bonus for some stupid reason I will never understand, so it doesn't stack with Expeditious Retreat/Haste/Boots of Striding and Springing) and in regards to meeting feat prerequisites.

How so, Kyrt?

The book specifically states:
"A monk's unarmed strike is treated as both a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon for the purpose of spells and effects that enhance or improve either manufactured weapons or natural weapons."

And the spell masterwork transformation specifically states:
"Target: one weapon, suit of armor, shield, tool, or skill kit touched"

A monks UAS is treated as a manufactured weapon. This is different from anyone else who takes UAS as a feat. The masterwork equivalent of a weapon is just an increase in cost of gold and a +1 bonus to hit.

When a monk does Flurry of Blows they are treated as having a full BAB for all of there Flurry of Blows attacks. The only time a monk uses a 3/4 BAB is when they can not make a Flurry of Blows such as when they charge.

I can't figure out how no one recognizes the monk does have access to a Full BAB when they are using unarmed or a monk weapon in a Flurry.

A level 8 Monk and a level 8 Two Weapon Ranger have the same to hit bonus, and the same number of attacks and probably the same strength score to if I made a monk or a ranger my str would be 14 either way.

Monk
Flurry of Blows for a monk = +6 bab +2 str +2 amulet (which I don't believe it's a stretch to say a monk would have a +2 amulet at this level)

Ranger
Ranger Full Attack = +6 (since he's using 2 weapons it's not a +8) +2 str +2 weapons

they both equal +10 to hit, they both have 4 attacks

First I want everyone on the boards to admit the monk does get a Full BAB when the monk makes a Full attack action with a Flurry. The only time the monk gets 3/4 BAB is when they have to make a charge attack.

Actually, no, it's not quite full BAB. It's full BAB if the other char uses TWF and improved TWF, which while cool is not ideal. Most of the CR9 monsters have 20 AC or over, so you're looking at 2 55% chances to hit them and 2 30% chances to hit, assuming 20 AC. With a full BAB class, assuming the specifications you gave of +2 from a stat and a +2 from a weapon, it'd be only two attacks, but it'd be at +12/+7 which would give a 65% chance to hit and a 40% chance to hit respectively.

Now, not only do you have a better chance to hit, but having a fighter or barb with only 14-15 is somewhat ridiculous, so the chances to hit will go up.

A lvl 8 ranger with many shot and rapidshot can also do 4 attacks with a higher chance to hit than a monk with the same +2 from a stat and +2 from the weapon (which, once again is unrealistic statwise).

As a side note, 6 CR9 monsters have under 20 AC, 1 of which is flying while another is a multiplying gargantuan skeleton. The most common ACs were 21 and 23, which would lower the chance for the monk to hit even more.

So a monk isn't fully full BAB. Cool class, but not terribly effective without heavy tinkering.

First I want everyone on the boards to admit the monk does get a Full BAB when the monk makes a Full attack action with a Flurry.

And after that, I want everyone in the world to bow down and address me as king of the universe.

Monks don't get full BAB. They get twf with full BAB and the -2 penalty, and they're so mad and they don't really get skills that up the damage of that almost full BAB they get. They also don't get the best CMD/CMB becuase they don't get bonuses to those, just access to the feats everyone else can get anyway. They don't get boost to CMD/CMB, damage, or BAB really... Thats probably part of the problem.

Also, masterwork weapon won't stack with AoMF even if you could use it on your fist. Masterwork fist sounds awesome though...

When a monk does Flurry of Blows they are treated as having a full BAB for all of there Flurry of Blows attacks. The only time a monk uses a 3/4 BAB is when they can not make a Flurry of Blows such as when they charge.

I can't figure out how no one recognizes the monk does have access to a Full BAB when they are using unarmed or a monk weapon in a Flurry.

A level 8 Monk and a level 8 Two Weapon Ranger have the same to hit bonus, and the same number of attacks and probably the same strength score to if I made a monk or a ranger my str would be 14 either way.

Monk
Flurry of Blows for a monk = +6 bab +2 str +2 amulet (which I don't believe it's a stretch to say a monk would have a +2 amulet at this level)

Ranger
Ranger Full Attack = +6 (since he's using 2 weapons it's not a +8) +2 str +2 weapons

they both equal +10 to hit, they both have 4 attacks

First I want everyone on the boards to admit the monk does get a Full BAB when the monk makes a Full attack action with a Flurry. The only time the monk gets 3/4 BAB is when they have to make a charge attack.

even an Archery range would still have an attack bonus of +10 same as the monk if he used Rapid Shot since Rapid Shot still gives the archer a -2 to all attacks. So far the Monk still scales to the Ranger attacks no matter what weapon he uses. A Monk using flurry of blows gets 4 attacks at level 8 and a Two weapon fighting Ranger gets 4 attacks at level 8, although an Archery ranger gets 3 attacks with rapid shot and has lower damage than the monk does.

Level 8 monk would have +10, +10, +5, +5 to hit and 4 attacks
Level 8 Two weapon Ranger would have +10, +10, +5, +5 and 4 attacks
Level 8 Archery Ranger would have +10, +10, +5 and 3 attacks

Two Weapon Rangers are doing less damage than tne monk because there damage increase as they level, and like the monk don't have very high base bonus to damage.
Archery Rangers are still doing less damage than the monk. There advantage is they aren't in melee combat

Damage and attack wise
Monk = Two Weapon Ranger
Monk > Archery Ranger

P.S. Not getting an enhancement bonus to movement from haste is barely a price to pay for there FULL TIME Fast Movement. I can live with that, and I would hope anyone else could to.

Monks don't get full BAB. They get twf with full BAB and the -2 penalty, and they're so mad and they don't really get skills that up the damage of that almost full BAB they get. They also don't get the best CMD/CMB becuase they don't get bonuses to those, just access to the feats everyone else can get anyway. They don't get boost to CMD/CMB, damage, or BAB really... Thats probably part of the problem.

Also, masterwork weapon won't stack with AoMF even if you could use it on your fist. Masterwork fist sounds awesome though...

at level 3 monks use there monk level as there BAB to CMB (which means they do get the best CMB) while they don't get this bonus to CMD but it's a close second, Once again monks Unarmed dice go up. MrSin you keep bringing up the samethings at this point I don't even think you are reading the thread or have even read the monk class before. So far I've continued to show the monk is equal to the ranger as a melee combatant. If we put the Zen archer next to the archery ranger I'm pretty sure they would be equal and the Zen Archer might even be a little bit better because of Perfect Strike, Ki Arrows, Trick Shot even there other ranged abilities are better than the ranger. If Ranger didn't have Favored Enemy that class would suck.

No, it means they have a full BAB. Not the best. The two are different things. There are classes that get full BAB and a bonus to CMD/CMB. Those classes will have the best, those classes aren't MAD either. Unarmed dice are increase avarage slowly, but they don't compare to favored enemy or smite evil. Both of which you can spam, though smite requires oath of vengance and particular targets and favored enemy can be changed with instant enemy. Rage might compare, but I think you pick barbarian for rage powers not numbers, and someone can compare fighters who hit harder and more often than a monk will(but may have less attacks.)

Claiming I haven't read whats been said or the monk class is insulting. I was responding to Parizzio earlier.

You are picking an archetype to compare archer to archer. Zen archer and MoMS are two archetypes that people actually like and I don't see picked on for being underpowered that often. At worst they just don't hit super hard. I have said nothing against either of these archetypes.

Only fighters get a bonus to CMD/CMB and that's to Disarm and also Sunder, and I already know a monk can't beat a fighter.

Smite evil is situational and oath of vengeance lets you do it afew more times a day which is a good deal, but it still doesn't change when and how it can be used and depend what you are fighting against. Unarmed Dice work against everything. Although if you are able to Smite evil on something that is actually evil you will kick it's ass.

Favored Enemy and Instant Enemy that still requires you to make the proper knowledge check to determine the type of monster you are fighting, because you can't just say my favored enemy is that monster or pick a monster that looks like it.

You are picking an archetype to compare archer to archer. Zen archer and MoMS are two archetypes that people actually like and I don't see picked on for being underpowered that often. At worst they just don't hit super hard. I have said nothing against either of these archetypes.

I bring up the archer because the Ranger archer has been brought up several times by others so I need to use Zen archer to compare it to.

Level 8 monk would have +10, +10, +5, +5 to hit and 4 attacks
Level 8 Two weapon Ranger would have +10, +10, +5, +5 and 4 attacks
Level 8 Archery Ranger would have +10, +10, +5 and 3 attacks

You've never seen an actual ranger, have you?

A competently built level 8 archer has manyshot. That's three attacks at his highest attack bonus and one at -5.

An archer spends half as much enhancing his bow as the monk does his amulet. His attack bonus is 1 higher at most levels because of this.

An archer ranger has access to the Gravity Bow spell, pushing his damage dice to 2d6 for a minute per caster level for the fights that matter. At this level it lasts 50 minutes, long enough for a small dungeon. For 2000 gp the ranger can get a first level pear of power to get more castings.

An archer ranger can also get 19-20x3 crits with either a set of bracers of falcon's aim or by casting the first level spell it's based on. Again, it lasts 50 minutes and can be recovered with a 1000 gp pearl of power. The bracers provide it all day for a mere 4000 gp.

For financial comparison, the monk's robe that the monk would need to catch up to the ranger's damage dice costs as much as 13 first level pearls of power, giving 5:50 of both spells and another 50 minutes of one or the other. That's probably not happening at this level (though a few pearls likely are) but neither is the monk's robe.

An archer can trivially penetrate any material DR because of the cheapness of ammunition and can often pick up bane arrows for telegraphed fights. Most APs seem to prefer one set of evil outsiders.

How so, Kyrt?

The book specifically states:
"A monk's unarmed strike is treated as both a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon for the purpose of spells and effects that enhance or improve either manufactured weapons or natural weapons."

And the spell masterwork transformation specifically states:
"Target: one weapon, suit of armor, shield, tool, or skill kit touched"

A monks UAS is treated as a manufactured weapon. This is different from anyone else who takes UAS as a feat. The masterwork equivalent of a weapon is just an increase in cost of gold and a +1 bonus to hit.

BTW I wouldn't let you cast masterwork transformation on an unarmed strike, mainly because there is no "masterwork equivalent" for a unarmed strike, which means the spell would have no effect.

Only fighters get a bonus to CMD/CMB and that's to Disarm and also Sunder, and I already know a monk can't beat a fighter.

If you know that then how can you even argue a Monk is a good frontliner? Barbarian and Paladin kick Fighter's ass in the damage game (Barbarian having lower AC), while Ranger is a couple t0-hit and damage behind with a lot more nifty tricks (and wins with Favored Enemy, hands down).

So where does Monk fall in this?

See MrSin everyone keeps going back to Ranger archer, because I've obviously proven the Monk is Equal to the Two Weapon fighting monk. So I compare it to the Zen Archer which can get a cheap magical item to do Gravity Bow and than come out ahead.

Manyshot

You can fire multiple arrows at a single target.

Prerequisites: Dex 17, Point-Blank Shot, Rapid Shot, base attack bonus +6.

Benefit: When making a full-attack action with a bow, your first attack fires two arrows. If the attack hits, both arrows hit. Apply precision-based damage (such as sneak attack) and critical hit damage only once for this attack. Damage bonuses from using a composite bow with a high Strength bonus apply to each arrow, as do other damage bonuses, such as a ranger's favored enemy bonus. Damage reduction and resistances apply separately to each arrow.

Atarlost you should reread manyshot as a Full-Attack your first attack lets you fire 2 arrows and than you get your third shot. Even with manyshot you are still only getting 3 shots you can't use Manyshot and Rapid Shot in the same round. While a Zen Archer can spend 1 ki point to get his unarmed damage as his arrow damage and he can still get multiple crits and if he keens his bow he gets 19-20 x2 crit. Gravity Bow is nice, but Zen archer is still a little stronger because of perfect strike. "WHAT'S THIS I ROLLED 2 DICE AND ONE OF THEM ROLLED A 1 I'M NOT USING THAT AS MY ATTACK ROLL OR WHAT'S THIS I ROLLED 2 DICE AND ONE OF THEM ROLLED A 20 YEA BABY CRITS. Kinda like the Zen archer better than the ranger at the moment

Zen Archer I've heard is pretty darn good.

I can't speak of its effectiveness vs a Ranger since, well, I've never played one because I HATE playing archers.

But you have in no way proven a Ranger is worse at TWF-ing than a Monk, whatsoever.

You've proven, at the very least, that a Monk is on par with a Ranger (bar the obvious health deficit) in number of hits (but not damage, since both his Str and Dex are horrible), and has a decent AC (provided he spends around twice as much cash).

Also, while I would say that a zen archer would probably out damage the archery ranger, the archery ranger gets access to spells, FE, and his AC can be a mount/flying mount, which is awesome for an archer.

As for the TWF thing, the TWF character has access to keen weapons, which can enable him to have two 15-20 crit weapons, which is crazy awesome when it works.

Yeah... Fist never get the amazingness that is critting a quarter of the time. Thats a thing with all natural attacks too. Unless your a barbarian, but pounce charger barbarian with 4 natural attacks is at the top of the list of things I don't want to meet.

I was trying to say Zen archer is one of the better ones. Can we go back to proving monks vs twf of another sort? Or how about monks vs barbarians saves and dpr?

Smite is situational, but in my experience the number of opposite aligned foes you run into far outwieghs the neutral and same aligned. Oath of vengeance is an excuse to spam it as I've seen, but PFS is an enviroment where almost everything is made of evil. Perfect strike on the other hand is highly limited and you have to call it before you attack.

Yeah... Fist never get the amazingness that is critting a quarter of the time. Thats a thing with all natural attacks too. Unless your a barbarian, but pounce charger barbarian with 4 natural attacks is at the top of the list of things I don't want to meet.

I was trying to say Zen archer is one of the better ones. Can we go back to proving monks vs twf of another sort? Or how about monks vs barbarians saves and dpr?

Smite is situational, but in my experience the number of opposite aligned foes you run into far outwieghs the neutral and same aligned. Oath of vengeance is an excuse to spam it as I've seen, but PFS is an enviroment where almost everything is made of evil. Perfect strike on the other hand is highly limited and you have to call it before you attack.

1) Why are we comparing monks to what is widely accepted as the least effective fighting style to measure their competetiveness?

2) The only class which really has a reason to go TWF is the Ranger and that's because they skip the dex reqs.

So lets say that's what happens. The ranger has medium armor and as such needs no more than 14 dex likewise he needs no more than 14 wis(assuming he wants to have full access to spells with 0 further investment) so that's 10 points with the remainder he can pick up a 14 con and a 16 str with the race bonus.

Lets assume the monk is using the same stats since they're more or less equally applicable unless he's going for Agile and in that case he's worthless filler for the first 5 levels or so.

They both have full BAB when twf but the ranger has a +1 or more whenever he has to move. The ranger has +1 hp/level and +2 skills/level over the monk. The ranger has an advantage of 4 AC and armor enchants are cheaper than raising stats so they're probably going to stay ahead unless you're really pilling the money on the party. The Ranger has way better bonus feats for the base class(the monk's mostly suck) the Ranger has a smaller damage die but can get a 15+ crit range with the investment of one feat, the monk can never get his below 19+. The ranger can use his amulet slot for natural armor to further maintain his AC lead. And all of this is before you account for favored enemies. The monk has a better will save iirc. Faster movement which he doesn't want to use because it makes him worse in combat but which could be useful for running away or round 1 and flanking. Stunning fist which is either bad or incredible depending on if your DM can't roll above a 2 on a regular basis. The monk does however have access to style feats, unfortunately the only way to get them fast enough to make a huge difference is by going MoMS and then you don't have flurry and have to compare yourself to Twohand Fighters and cry.

See MrSin everyone keeps going back to Ranger archer, because I've obviously proven the Monk is Equal to the Two Weapon fighting monk. So I compare it to the Zen Archer which can get a cheap magical item to do Gravity Bow and than come out ahead.

SRD wrote:

Manyshot

You can fire multiple arrows at a single target.

Prerequisites: Dex 17, Point-Blank Shot, Rapid Shot, base attack bonus +6.

Benefit: When making a full-attack action with a bow, your first attack fires two arrows. If the attack hits, both arrows hit. Apply precision-based damage (such as sneak attack) and critical hit damage only once for this attack. Damage bonuses from using a composite bow with a high Strength bonus apply to each arrow, as do other damage bonuses, such as a ranger's favored enemy bonus. Damage reduction and resistances apply separately to each arrow.

Atarlost you should reread manyshot as a Full-Attack your first attack lets you fire 2 arrows and than you get your third shot. Even with manyshot you are still only getting 3 shots you can't use Manyshot and Rapid Shot in the same round. While a Zen Archer can spend 1 ki point to get his unarmed damage as his arrow damage and he can still get multiple crits and if he keens his bow he gets 19-20 x2 crit. Gravity Bow is nice, but Zen archer is still a little stronger because of perfect strike. "WHAT'S THIS I ROLLED 2 DICE AND ONE OF THEM ROLLED A 1 I'M NOT USING THAT AS MY ATTACK ROLL OR WHAT'S THIS I ROLLED 2 DICE AND ONE OF THEM ROLLED A 20 YEA BABY CRITS. Kinda like the Zen archer better than the ranger at the moment

Manyshot is statistically identical to having two shots apart from only one critting. And don't be a jerk.

If your DM allows more than one archetype, and is willing to let you choose which 20th lvl ability you want, a MoMS and MotFW monk would be pretty interesting.

I've always wanted to see a flowing monk/MoMS dip myself. lvl 20 cap being the only reason things can mix just looks wierd to me.

I've always wanted to see a flowing monk/MoMS dip myself. lvl 20 cap being the only reason things can mix just looks wierd to me.

Yeah.

I should build one of those with my freeform thingy and see how it works out actually. If nothing else that's good for comparing archetypes that normally couldn't mix because of a minor ability like that.

Even with manyshot you are still only getting 3 shots you can't use Manyshot and Rapid Shot in the same round.

Who says so? Rapid shot and manyshot work fine togheter in PF.

I will concede that maybe the monk was claimed to be a front line fighter but is not. They have a slightly lower than full bab when flurrying and slightly lower hd than other front liners. Ok, cool.

They get a host of combat specific abilities clearly orienting them towards being combatants, though. This, combined with high mobility, and many inherent defensive capabilities that apply out of combat suggest that they are designed as secondary combatants or scouts. If optimized, they can fill the role of a more specialized class, certainly, but that would be at the expense of other things they could be doing better and, as other will point out regardless of me saying it here, the other specialized classes, if optimized, would be doing it even better.

The monk gets an attractive and useful skill set and similar amount of skill points allowing them several options in how they would like to expand their character. While the list isn't as good as a rogues or superior, necessarily, to a rangers, it is still a useful list and a useful amount of skill points- unless someone wants to argue that only 6+ skill points per level and ranger or better skill list are the only 'acceptable' skill lists. In which case, I will vehemently disagree.

So the monk is a fairly versatile character in a lot of ways that don't, allow it to be a great front line combatant but which do seem to favor it more towards scouting and secondary combat. Yes, there are better scouts (any spellcaster is obviously the ultimate scout since magic is better than everything so let's move on from that debate) like, perhaps, the rogue and ranger. But the rogue is a dedicated skill beast with an entirely secondary set of abilities designed to enhance any of the number of roles they are capable of filling. Rangers are focused in part, on scouting so if they are superior scouts (I'm not sure that they are) then it is fine that they are better at it than the monk, at least in some areas.

Looking at the class, it would appear that they have a host of maneuverability features built in that are each good in and out of combat. This suggests that they are supposed to be either capable of reaching any given area of the battlefield or able to access a location easier or before other pc's could, without the need for using items to do so (although like any pc, they certainly may opt to use items to enhance their mobility, ie fly, etc), or both. This all seems to support the idea that they are secondary or even supportive combatants who goals are multifaceted. They enter a combat and attempt to make things easier for allies via stunning fists, flanking, and access to sensitive targets before others normally would have it, in an effort to offer a measure of control that wouldn't normally be there without further rounds of combat taking place. They aren't combat gods, but they're quite able to survive and hold their own in a fight, optimized or not.

They hit about as often as any full martial doing two weapon fighting but technically may hit moreso if they are using a monk weapon and focused on flurrying when they make those attacks (the assumption being they have high strength).

Yes, they are not using their fists when using a monk weapon, but they can always alternate if they desire to apply stunning fist. This does diminish their hit chances, but I believe I know of at least one or two monk weapons that also allow the use of monk abilities (such as stunning fist) through the weapons as well. A monk using weapons of any sort designed for them (temple sword, shuriken) seems to undermine many of the arguments about 'monks cannot hit anything, no matter what they do because they don't have a full bab, and when they pretend to have one they still suck because they can't hit anything because they aren't an actual fighter or ranger).

I see many fighter and ranger topics, as well as other martials, that show TWF builds (rogues are on the list also) that claim they are great damage dealers, even after the -2 is factored in. Being fair, the monk has the same chances to hit if using a weapon. Not every monk is a fist type, even if most of us really wish we were. Furthermore, at the point a monk is using fists, they are paying the same as a twf combatant for their weapons, although, I have to admit that you only get up to +5 out of it, so you have fewer options via enchantment. And yes, static damage boosting is generally better than additional dice. This doesn't sound like a terrible issue since, by appearance, the class doesn't look like it's a fighter, ranger, or barbarian....but a monk (supportive role, back up fighter, etc).

I also agree that they require simply too many darn stats to capitalize on all of most of their abilities, while most other classes (rogues are a noted exception) don't have to sacrifice too much. The cool thing about a monk is that these are all options but they are presented as necessities. You don't actually have to have a high wisdom on your monk and not wear armor. Nor do you have to fight with your fists. However, you do lose out on several class features, most of which are arguably thematic (though mildly useful). Fortunately, there are plenty of archetypes which don't hesitate to remove some or several of these to allow you to refine the monk to whatever flavor your taste is aiming for.

While I agree with some of the sentiment that they could use some reworking, I don't see them as mathematically, negative value wastes of page space in the phb that the sentiment seems to be. Although, I can understand those of us who are fans of the monk being upset that they are not as good in a straight up brawl as we would like them to be. Also, the class is misleading and does require a lot of system mastery to function well. But like any class, how useful they are will entirely depend on who else is in the party. Obviously, a spellcaster is supposed to be useful, no matter how many other spellcasters are in the same party, purely because magic is supposed to win, arbitrarily, at anything and everything. But that aside, in a arty of five, is the third bard a 5th wheel? How about the 4th barbarian or ranger? While you get some cool perks for stacking up, there's a point where bringing another optimized beat stick to the table doesn't really do anything for the group and you're just as useless because things are dead before it's your turn, or nobody is effective because there is too much of the same thing that you (and others in the party made just like you) are weak to.

In one of the last games I played, our rogue and healer carried the overwhelming bulk of the party weight. And yeah, we had a fighter and monk, but the rogue was fighting, searching for traps, and a few other things. Everyone else was stuck in more limited roles and carried weight when they came up- which was less often. A monk, I feel, is ideal for these situations (as is a rogue).

When a monk does Flurry of Blows they are treated as having a full BAB for all of there Flurry of Blows attacks. The only time a monk uses a 3/4 BAB is when they can not make a Flurry of Blows such as when they charge.

Or they have to move more than 5' in a single round. Or they don't have a monk weapon.

I can't figure out how no one recognizes the monk does have access to a Full BAB when they are using unarmed or a monk weapon in a Flurry.

Because it is so heavily restricted, it isn't full BAB.

A level 8 Monk and a level 8 Two Weapon Ranger have the same to hit bonus, and the same number of attacks and probably the same strength score to if I made a monk or a ranger my str would be 14 either way.

Monk
Flurry of Blows for a monk = +6 bab +2 str +2 amulet (which I don't believe it's a stretch to say a monk would have a +2 amulet at this level)

Ranger
Ranger Full Attack = +6 (since he's using 2 weapons it's not a +8) +2 str +2 weapons

they both equal +10 to hit, they both have 4 attacks

Except the ranger doesn't need to invest as heavily in wisdom or con, so he'll have better strength, which will give him a +1 edge. He'll duel wield a nice pair of kukris and use one +1 to make them keen so they threaten on a 15-20. This effectively adds up to 30% to his damage potential, which will comfortably equal or surpass the monk unarmed.

If he has to move and attack, he'll get an effective +2 bonus over the monk to hit. Oh, and he can get his animal companion to flank for him, for another +2 to hit before we factor in the animal's attacks.

If fighting something with high AC the ranger can drop attacks from one weapon to get an effective +2 to hit with the other weapon, the monk cannot.

Then there's his spells and favoured enemy bonus to consider...

First I want everyone on the boards to admit the monk does get a Full BAB when the monk makes a Full attack action with a Flurry. The only time the monk gets 3/4 BAB is when they have to make a charge attack.

Or move, or use a decent weapon, or fight with any but the weakest combat style. It's gimped full BAB at best.

Oh, and you complained no-one posted up their monk builds, so here's one of mine - diced stats in this game, I rolled excellent but really struggled to keep up after 8th level.

Well... I'll try to respond to what you said Dark Immortal.

Monks have full BAB for twf, but they don't have much to improve on their attack or damage so I don't know why they would hit more or for more damage. Where are you getting that? Using Monk weapons doesn't make their hit or damage any better directly. Helps enhancement though, but no more than anyone using a single weapon gets and not that far ahead of twf. Saves money on the AoMF though.

They are mobile, and they can use maneuevers to help. They however can't move and hit much(if at all) and manuevers quickly fall behind. Aid Another is a meh bonus and gets worse becuase it doesn't scale. "Don't worry guys, i can't actually kill anything. But look! I can give you a +2 to attack!" thats not a very good way to live life I don't think.

There is also a very big difference between stacking casters and fighters. Fighters have one trick, hitting things. Casters have many choices, you can have 4 wizards who do entirely different things.

Most of us here would love it if monk didn't require so much system mastery to make awesome and do what its supposed to(whatever that is). I don't know if anyone will argue with that.