|
Personally, I find Monks(standard monk archetype and/or qinggong) to have a true calling of controlling the field than anything. Their survival is pretty outstanding to boot. They definitely come off as a very rounded character with all of their wonky and random class abilites/bonus feats whilst being quite resourceful and almost delicate. Whilst not skill monkeys, I would say they're definitely a combat monkey.
What they are truly meant to be:
Exactly what they are claimed to be in the fluffy depiction. They're supposed to be mobile warriors with big defenses and awesome rapid attacks. The writers in 3rd edition just blew it horribly by not understanding how everything would work together.
It's not a class without a clear goal, it's a class that failed to reach its goal.
They were never intended to be a "combat monkey," they were intended to move around really well and hit really hard and fast (basically like a fighter from a different angle), they just, well, don't.
And of course they're also intended to pander to the Eastern martial arts crowd.
dot
From what I can tell, they're supposed to bypass the front line (with their speed and Tumble skill, they're good at that) then stun or grapple a spellcaster... which is nothing like Bruce Lee. That's also a very narrow niche; many encounters won't feature a caster at all.
No, that's what they're actually good at, not what they're supposed to be good at. They're supposed to be Bruce Lee with more mysticism, but the original writers blew it and left Monk as a trap (though it can be a good dip, for sure, and it's decent in E6 or E8).
Originally they were an alternate thief (mechanically, not conceptually).
Original Table top/pen and paper , DnD was meant to have characters in the group who each had a strong suit so the party had one person who could deal with whatever happened. (hence the ... "you have to play a cleric, we NEED a cleric") the monk, was well, that class you played if there were 5 of you, instead of 4.
I think, in Pathfinder, they're supposed to be team players. I think they're supposed to make things easier for the rest of the guys to kill. Whether that's by tripping, or distracting, or what have you.
I for one am not a fan of the pathfinder fluff text. I liked the 3/3.5 flavour more. There monks were more about self perfection than the combat hungry image we get painted now.
Monks were actually part of the priest class, but I have said all this before ages ago.
I also love monks, and have never really had problems with them. It comes down to what you want to do with the class. Its not a class that is supposed to match the fighter or barbarian at DPR. Any specific thing you want to do with the monk, there is probably a better class for that job. But monks can do a variety of things differently. Also high sense motive and perception :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Originally they were an alternate thief (mechanically, not conceptually).
No, they weren't, they were and have been since conception their own class apart from the others. They first appeared in the original AD&D Player's Handbook, and were placed out of alphabetical sequence at the end of the player character options because they represented an oddball class that would not be the taste of some players and DMs.
I for one am not a fan of the pathfinder fluff text. I liked the 3/3.5 flavour more. There monks were more about self perfection than the combat hungry image we get painted now.
Which is another way of saying that they didn't work in 3.x either. Being about self-perfection is all well and good, but that doesn't help you or the rest of the party if you can't do much when the manure impacts the windmill. The monk is a combat class, yet it can't fight very well.
Monks were actually part of the priest class, but I have said all this before ages ago.
I agree conceptually they are religious/philosophical mystics.
I also love monks, and have never really had problems with them. It comes down to what you want to do with the class. Its not a class that is supposed to match the fighter or barbarian at DPR. Any specific thing you want to do with the monk, there is probably a better class for that job. But monks can do a variety of things differently. Also high sense motive and perception :)
It's not about DPR, though, it's about actually being able to do anything reliable and effective in combat, or even out of it. Being a jack of all trades is fine, but the monk isn't really a jack of all trades, he's a dabbler in a few of them. He has a few good skills, but he's not got the ranks or intelligence commitment to really be a skills monkey. He has some combat abilities, but he's not really good at hitting things. He has a few special abilities, but they aren't a patch on even a 1/3 caster.
The jack of all trade characters that work are rangers and bards, the monk doesn't hold much of a candle to them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Heh. I called the monk I built for Build Thread 3 "Wingman". My thought behind it was monks can accompany rangers and rogues when they scout (high perception and stealth). They can ostensibly be flanking buddies for fighters and barbarians (and rogues) using their enhanced mobility (high speed, high Acrobatics) to get into position quickly.
At 11th level, the monk's immunity to poison makes him an indispensible wingman when heading to bars.
According to the fluff text, they're supposed to be ascetic warriors who can kill or shatter things with "fists of steel."
According to their abilities, they (at least core) are supposed to be really good at avoiding magical damage and certain status effects, with some melee support and mobility (except they can't take advantage of their mobility if they use flurry of blows).
Some of their archetypes make them great to be combat maneuver specialists. Other archetypes make them good mystics, general skill and class ability support.
I've proposed starter builds in the past (how good they are is a different story) but I'd like monks split into two different classes... a martial artist class ... which is a full BAB ascetic warrior, that specializes in punching things to jelly. Probably with a few combat maneuver tricks. (Monk Martial Artist and Fighter Brawler get close, but not quite; archetypes just can't quite get to it at the right iterations. Indeed, something like a full version of the d20 Modern Martial Artist would be closest.)
And a mystic class, which is a support class which has some cool quasi-magical abilities, good skills, and decent mobility to get around the battlefield to go where he is needed most. This class would not have flurry of blows, though might still get an improved unarmed strike die and improved unarmed strike as a bonus feat. Probably would look like the sensei qinggong monk, with tweaks.
To the designers, they're meant to be a trap for despicable "weaboo" fans for daring to want Asian themed stuff in the designers' precious faux medieval European recreation.
To the fans, what mpl said, basically. A warrior who is both fast/mobile and delivers a torrent of strikes, with high defenses. A great caster-killer. And the best at combat maneuvers, or at least certain ones common to martial arts, like tripping and disarming.
They are HORRIBLE for battlefield control barring massive, massive houserules and fluff changes. For a martial to control a battlefield, he needs a lot of reach. Using weapons that only hit adjacent / your natural reach (unarmed) doesn't cut it. It's half the reason the Stand Still feat went from awesome in 3E to worthless in PF - the other half is that it uses the CMB/CMD system.
(In 3E, Stand Still worked with any weapon, including reach weapons, and the enemy had to make a REFLEX SAVE based on damage that would have been dealt)
Monks are meant to be part of "two great tastes that taste great together" as one half of many gestalt builds.
I don't think it's any coincidence that one little letter separates Monk from Mook.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A lot of the debate on this board is based on theory and in practice things don't go like people believe they will.
I played a monk all the way up to 20 in a 3.5 campaign many moons ago. It was a combat support with mage-killing abilities. The mage killing thing never panned out because the wizards at my level were better at hiding from me, so I was more a hard-for-mage-to-kill-than-others character, but I was surprisingly effective as a support combat person. The movement advantage was very helpful. I should mention this was a group of six players, which meant encounters framed similarly around a group that big.That's a lot of pieces on a grid. Having another, more mobile piece on the board that has good range was very helpful. There are some cool feats to boost your attacks of opportunity which make you a battlefield nuisance.
No, I wasn't "the most powerful" character. It hate that people on this board use that as the primary criterion for if a character is broken or not. I was never the star, but I didn't build the character that way. He was the wise eastern visitor who would approach problems differently than "westerners" and could more than hold his own in a fight. It helped we played them up to 20 and then retired them and only two people died in the campaign. It was quite fun.
I think I "got my money's worth" out of my character and it went exactly as advertised, outside of the mage-killing thing that never really showed up.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Monks are meant to be part of "two great tastes that taste great together" as one half of many gestalt builds.Except that Pathfinder has no gestalt in RAW.
Except that all the cool kids seem to be talking about it anyhow without you saying "That's not RAW!"
So do go over there and tell them they're doing it wrong. I won't mind. *shrugs*
I have played two and a half monks in D&D and its successors: pure monks in AD&D and 3rd Edition D&D, and a ranger/monk in Pathfinder. What all three characters wanted to be was a nimble fighter and a supportive teammate. They were adequate at those roles.
They have a PR problem :( People want them to be Bruce Lee, and they're not. Even though the books tell you what their role is supposed to be (sort of anyway), their image overrides the text.
I read a lot of Wizards of the Coast's design articles on Magic: The Gathering. One design rule for Magic is that if most playtesters first try to play an ability a certain way that contradicts the text of the ability, then the text should be changed to match what the players' first impression. Magic is complicated enough without a mismatch between expectations and rules.
Pathfinder is even more complicated than Magic: The Gathering. Thus, the expectations created by Bruce Lee, Jackie Chan, Hong Kong wuxia movies, and the 1970's TV show Kung Fu should factor in to what a monk is meant to be.
- Martial arts style, including weapons and clothing
- Dodges blows and leaps over obstacles
- Wise, serene, and mystical
- Neutralizes minions quickly and battles worthy opponents slowly
- Appears harmless
By those expectations, the role of the monk in combat would be skirmisher. Able to make multiple small attacks without weapons while highly mobile without armor, the monk would take out the minions to create an opening for the fighter who will battle the big boss, and then either guard that fighter's back or retreat to protect the party wizard.
The monk would also have a role outside combat both as a scout and as a practitioner in mystic abilities. The monk could also check out towns while pretending to be a traveling 1st-level monk since he lacks the fancy weapons and armor of higher-level characters.
The Core Rulebook monk is close to this. The combination of Fast Movement and Flurry of Blows looks like a mobile skirmisher, except that the two abilities cannot be used together. Stunning Fist would work for neutralizing minions, except that the small number of Stunning Fist attempts per day and its opposition by a mook warrior's best save reserves it for stunning wizards. The ki pool looks mystic, but its tightly limited uses are combat tricks rather than anything wise and serene. Thus, poor implementation of abilities that meet a new player's expectations makes the monk a trap, as mplindustries said.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
By those expectations, the role of the monk in combat would be skirmisher. Able to make multiple small attacks without weapons while highly mobile without armor, the monk would take out the minions to create an opening for the fighter who will battle the big boss, and then either guard that fighter's back or retreat to protect the party wizard.
The problem here is that "skirmisher" is not a valid option in any game based on 3rd edition D&D (except maybe the 3.5 Scout with Greater Manyshot).
Full Attacks > Anything else a non-spellcaster can possibly do
Without Pounce, full attacks deny movement. Therefore, movement is deterimental to melee. Being "the most mobile fighter" is like...a really offensive metaphor. Being great at something intrinsically sucky is still sucky.
So, mobility is not an option within the framework of 3rd edition D&D (personally, one of my first rule changes if I were in charge of Pathfinder, would be the removal of the Full Attack action and allowing all attacks to be made on a standard).
But monk can still be done, right? The most common way its done in video game is with "avoidance tanking," wherein the Monk-type avoids hits while the Fighter-type absorbs hits. There is kind of a parallel here, because the standard image in people's heads is that the Monk has the best AC (with d8 HD), the Barbarian has the lowest AC (with d12s), and the Fighter has average in both (d10 HDs).
Unfortunately, magic items ruin that. Barbarians actually end up with the best AC overall, thanks to several Rage Powers, and Monks have the worst, because while class and skill and whatnot determine your attacks and hit points and stuff, money and magic powers are generally the only thing that contributes to AC after level 1 (other than raising your Dex every 4 levels, which is paltry compared to the effect of money).
So, you see, everything a monk is supposed to be just doesn't work in the framework of the rules. They are a pure trap the way things are now. Maybe in a game where attacking and moving weren't mutually exclusive, and/or one in which AC and attacks scale the same way, or Armor mitigates damage rather than preventing hits, then a Monk will work. But as is, it just can't happen.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Don't confuse what monks are supposed to be with what they are. They are supposed to be really mobile hard hitting elite martial unarmed warriors. unfortunately, do to some poor designs, they are in practice usually combat monkeys. This isn't the only way to make them though, you can get them to what they are supposed to be, it is just really difficult.
On a side note, I seem to recall hearing somewhere on the forums about a feat for clerics called guiding hand that lets you add wisdom to damage rolls. If this is how the feat works (and I wasn't misinterpreting the posts) then could a cleric1/monk rest with irori deity be a good monk? it seems like this would make you be capable of doing a ton of attacks/round for between 1d6+4 to 2d10+6 damage per attack.
I don't think it's any coincidence that one little letter separates Monk from Mook.What exactly is this "Mook" build that you are referring to? I know the definition of a Mook, but with a Monk in mind, what does that entitle the class? Someone who min/maxes or something?
There isn't a specific build. I'm saying monks are like mooks. Incompetent nincompoops in combat that aren't an actual threat, even in large numbers. A joke.
|
|
There isn't a specific build. I'm saying monks are like mooks. Incompetent nincompoops in combat that aren't an actual threat, even in large numbers. A joke.I don't think it's any coincidence that one little letter separates Monk from Mook.What exactly is this "Mook" build that you are referring to? I know the definition of a Mook, but with a Monk in mind, what does that entitle the class? Someone who min/maxes or something?
Oh :(
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Fun.
I think all the classes are meant to be fun. I don't think you have to be fully optimized in any class to have fun. You rarely need to be a perfectly optimized character to play the game.
When I play a monk I try to have fun. You get to run faster than everyone else. You get to jump higher than everyone else. You get a ton of attacks. You shrug off a lot of attacks that hurt other members of the party and look cool doing it. You get to disarm enemies, take their enemies, then beat them up in hand to hand combat. You are skilled and often get to go on stealth missions.
You can build a lot of different flavors of monk. Quite a few can be fun and effective. They won't be the most powerful member of a group a great deal of the time. But they'll be fun and highly effective.
Monk of the Four Winds looks like this at level one. Tis no Mook there.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
From what I can tell, they're supposed to bypass the front line (with their speed and Tumble skill, they're good at that) then stun or grapple a spellcaster... which is nothing like Bruce Lee. That's also a very narrow niche; many encounters won't feature a caster at all.No, that's what they're actually good at, not what they're supposed to be good at. They're supposed to be Bruce Lee with more mysticism, but the original writers blew it and left Monk as a trap (though it can be a good dip, for sure, and it's decent in E6 or E8).
And it has already been proven in other threads that an optimized monk can match an optimized fighter in both offense and defense.
It has also been proven that people ignore even hard numbers when they are contrary to personal belief.
On a side note, I seem to recall hearing somewhere on the forums about a feat for clerics called guiding hand that lets you add wisdom to damage rolls. If this is how the feat works (and I wasn't misinterpreting the posts) then could a cleric1/monk rest with irori deity be a good monk? it seems like this would make you be capable of doing a ton of attacks/round for between 1d6+4 to 2d10+6 damage per attack.
The feat in question is Guided Hand and unfortunately it's a bit of a trap option for monks. Guided Hand only affects your to-hit bonus, not damage - you still need a good strength bonus if you want to bring the hurt, or qualify for melee feats (or dexterity if you are using guided hand with a ranged weapon). It's for all intents an purposes 'Weapon Finesse' but has a significantly higher feat and class feature tax.
Another option is the Guided enhancement, which does give you wisdom to hit and damage with a melee weapon - you could enchant an AoMF with it. However, Guided is from an AP that was released during 3.5, was never updated or republished despite numerous chances to do so, and is by and large considered overpowered for the cost/benefit ratio it provides. If a player asked me to use Guided I'd probably bump it to a +2 (at least) before allowing it.
Finally, you could get Guided's smaller brother - Agile. Agile is the middle point between Guided and nothing, since you still require Weapon Finesse in order to make it work and it doesn't work on non-finesse weapons. Improved Unarmed Strike is a light weapon and thus a monk with Weapon Finesse and an Agile AoMF would get dexterity to hit and damage with unarmed strikes.
While Guided Hand is underwhelming, Agile and (especially) Guided are great options for monks since both options lets them mostly avoid strength, making them less MAD.
A monk with an Agile or a Guided amulet now only needs dexterity, constitution, and wisdom... MAD-wise he's roughly on the same level as a paladin.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Monk of the Four Winds looks like this at level one. Tis no Mook there.
Personally I see a mook that's about to realize that Slow Fall only works if he's within arm's reach of a wall. And that he doesn't pick it up til level 4.
Fun.
I think all the classes are meant to be fun. I don't think you have to be fully optimized in any class to have fun. You rarely need to be a perfectly optimized character to play the game.
When I play a monk I try to have fun. You get to run faster than everyone else. You get to jump higher than everyone else. You get a ton of attacks. You shrug off a lot of attacks that hurt other members of the party and look cool doing it. You get to disarm enemies, take their enemies, then beat them up in hand to hand combat. You are skilled and often get to go on stealth missions.
You can build a lot of different flavors of monk. Quite a few can be fun and effective. They won't be the most powerful member of a group a great deal of the time. But they'll be fun and highly effective.
But this is the problem with the monk.
If I am not optimizing at least some of the Monk-class abilities, why did I pick the Monk class in the first place? Many flavors of monk roleplaying work better by building the monk in another class and then roleplaying the character to act like a monk. For example, a barbarian also has Fast Movement and I could roleplay his rage ability as a meditative state that lets him tap his inner ki. That is just as fun as having given the character the Monk class.
The core monk comes in only two flavors that optimize Monk abilities for fun and effective: the strength build and the combat maneuver build.
And it has already been proven in other threads that an optimized monk can match an optimized fighter in both offense and defense.
It has also been proven that people ignore even hard numbers when they are contrary to personal belief.
That is the strength monk. I ignore the hard numbers because I don't like playing a monk that does not fit my image of what a monk is meant to do. The strength monk stands in one spot and hits hard. It ignores 90% of the fun stuff that Raith Shadar mentioned.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Fun.
I think all the classes are meant to be fun. I don't think you have to be fully optimized in any class to have fun. You rarely need to be a perfectly optimized character to play the game.
When I play a monk I try to have fun. You get to run faster than everyone else. You get to jump higher than everyone else. You get a ton of attacks. You shrug off a lot of attacks that hurt other members of the party and look cool doing it. You get to disarm enemies, take their enemies, then beat them up in hand to hand combat. You are skilled and often get to go on stealth missions.
You can build a lot of different flavors of monk. Quite a few can be fun and effective. They won't be the most powerful member of a group a great deal of the time. But they'll be fun and highly effective.
But this is the problem with the monk.
If I am not optimizing at least some of the Monk-class abilities, why did I pick the Monk class in the first place? Many flavors of monk roleplaying work better by building the monk in another class and then roleplaying the character to act like a monk. For example, a barbarian also has Fast Movement and I could roleplay his rage ability as a meditative state that lets him tap his inner ki. That is just as fun as having given the character the Monk class.
The core monk comes in only two flavors that optimize Monk abilities for fun and effective: the strength build and the combat maneuver build.
That is the strength monk. I ignore the hard numbers because I don't like playing a monk that does not fit my image of what a monk is meant to do. The strength monk stands in one spot and hits hard. It ignores 90% of the fun stuff that Raith Shadar mentioned.And it has already been proven in other threads that an optimized monk can match an optimized fighter in both offense and defense.
It has also been proven that people ignore even hard numbers when they are contrary to personal belief.
Do you play your monk super boring? As in do you not take chances with jump, not pick a martial style, not explore the archetypes and their abilities, constantly look at the other guy's damage total with envy, not stealth around with the rogue, and basically look to optimize compared to the other characters. Monks aren't going to do as much damage as a fighter or full BAB class all the time. Some rounds they will, some rounds not. They can be effective if you build them so.
Having to go with a strength build isn't a huge negative. Most melees have to go with a strength build. They stand there and hit people. I don't understand why this is some kind of negative. If you want to build a ranged attacker, then make a Zen Archer. They are quite powerful.
Monks get plus 60 feet of movement for a total of 90 feet. No barbarian is coming close to that. This also affects jump distance. I use jumping to flip around a battlefield at full speed jumping over the heads of my enemies. I can literally leap from behind the party to the flank position of my enemies at lvl 9.
I'm a Hungry Ghost Monk using a Temple Sword. I crit all the time and replenish my ki because I roll so often. I have scorching ray for an extra magic ranged attack because Slow Fall is used so little.
My CMD is the highest in the group. I have Crane Style which allows me to deflect an attack while fighting defensively which already boosts my AC way up.
I can disarm opponents and kick the living hell out of them in hand to hand combat.
I have two stats that raise my AC: Wis and Dex.
I resist all types of attacks very well. So when the fighter is getting mind controlled or feared, I'm still fighting on. Barbarian with morale bonuses to saves is tough to affect when he's raging. He's not always raging. Sometimes he gets hammered by spells I shrug off during the surprise round or when he loses initiative. Not to mention I don't have to save against cure spells and buffs. My touch AC is high.
The monk is fairly powerful. With the new buff allowing them to bypass silver and cold iron DR, it made them even more fun. Mechanically the monk is very versatile. I enjoy playing it.
Not sure what you're doing, but a barbarian cannot do what a monk does. And vice versa. No matter how you try to roleplay it. Maybe you don't average as high a level a I do in campaigns. I know any campaign I play in with my group I'll make level 12 or greater. Monk gets much better as you level. If you're playing only 1 to 5 or something like that, you're most likely not enjoying the better aspects of the monk. They are not a front loaded class like many of the melees.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
when you find the answer to this question
then you may leave the monastery
I'm not a huge fan of brass knuckles and gauntlets being the go-to option for monks who want to enchant their unarmed strike - it clashes with the iconic martial artist fighting with his bare hands. I'd rather see fistwraps, bodywraps, and so on. The errata on Amulet of Mighty Fists was a good step in the right direction there.
A lot of the debate on this board is based on theory and in practice things don't go like people believe they will.
No, actually a lot of it is based on actual game play and then backed up with theory to confirm it. Sorry.
Fun.
I think all the classes are meant to be fun. I don't think you have to be fully optimized in any class to have fun. You rarely need to be a perfectly optimized character to play the game.
I agree here, all classes should be fun. Fun is not defined by power, but having a character that works does help.
And it has already been proven in other threads that an optimized monk can match an optimized fighter in both offense and defense.
It has also been proven that people ignore even hard numbers when they are contrary to personal belief.
It has also been proven that these mythical builds do not exist, unless the same person made them and the fighter is gimped to hell and back. Least ways, that's what I've seen every time this claim is made.
While Guided Hand is underwhelming, Agile and (especially) Guided are great options for monks since both options lets them mostly avoid strength, making them less MAD.
A monk with an Agile or a Guided amulet now only needs dexterity, constitution, and wisdom... MAD-wise he's roughly on the same level as a paladin.
Actually, the paladin only needs Strength and Charisma, he doesn't need Constitution so badly because he can lay-on-hands as a swift action and adds his charisma bonus to his Fort save anyway.
The monk is also down on weapon enhancement, that +1 value just cost him 20% of his total enhancement available on the AoMF.
Having to go with a strength build isn't a huge negative. Most melees have to go with a strength build. They stand there and hit people. I don't understand why this is some kind of negative.
If you don't mind an AC that can be sneezed on to go with your lower hit points, and have the traditional hulking wall of muscle that oriental monks always were (that was sarcasm, BTW). Every effective warrior being strength-based is a big weakness. It would be nice if the one combat class that does not use spells but has a mental focus could buck the trend.
|
|
That is the strength monk. I ignore the hard numbers because I don't like playing a monk that does not fit my image of what a monk is meant to do. The strength monk stands in one spot and hits hard. It ignores 90% of the fun stuff that Raith Shadar mentioned.And it has already been proven in other threads that an optimized monk can match an optimized fighter in both offense and defense.
It has also been proven that people ignore even hard numbers when they are contrary to personal belief.
Strength monk?
The last "Monk's Suck" thread had unarmed DEX build monks with high AC and saves dealing > 100 DPR at 12th level. Without using an archetype.
Actually, the paladin only needs Strength and Charisma, he doesn't need Constitution so badly because he can lay-on-hands as a swift action and adds his charisma bonus to his Fort save anyway.While Guided Hand is underwhelming, Agile and (especially) Guided are great options for monks since both options lets them mostly avoid strength, making them less MAD.
A monk with an Agile or a Guided amulet now only needs dexterity, constitution, and wisdom... MAD-wise he's roughly on the same level as a paladin.
Which is why I used the word roughly :). I find that paladins still value constitution despite their self-healing and Divine Grace improving fortitude saves, though not as highly as strength or charisma. For instance Bodhi's Guide to the Paladin lists the following stat spread for a heavy-hitter melee paladin:
10 Point Buy: Str 16, Dex 9, Con 12, Int 7, Wis 7, Cha 15
15 point Buy: Str 16, Dex 11, Con 13, Int 8, Wis 7, Cha 15
20 Point Buy: Str 16, Dex 11, Con 14, Int 8, Wis 7, Cha 16
25 Point Buy: Str 16, Dex 12, Con 15, Int 10, Wis 7, Cha 16
If you switch Str with Dex and Cha with Wisdom, those are not bad stat spreads for a weapon finesse/agile monk.
The monk is also down on weapon enhancement, that +1 value just cost him 20% of his total enhancement available on the AoMF.
No argument here, though you could say that about any class that relies on the Agile enhancement (especially TWF). However I never said that access to these items make the monk balanced - merely that access improves the class as it is no longer quite as MAD as it used to be. Really I'm just outlining some alternatives to Guided Hand for ArmoredMonk13, who asked about how Guided Hand interacts with the monk.
If there's any particular part of my assessment you disagree with, I'd be happy to discuss it :)
With a 20 point build, I usually do the following:
Str 15
Dex 14
Con 14
Int 10
Wis 14
Cha 8
I don't see how those stats aren't good enough to be an effective monk. 15 point buy would be a little harder. You don't need to start with an 18 strength to be effective.
A monk should have balanced stats which fits the athletic, wise, well-rounded monk.
Some of you focus way too much on maxing out stats even when doing so is completely unnecessary. Letting the fighter have the 16 or 18 strength doesn't make you any less as a monk with a 14.
I really see a lot of people undervaluing all the perks of being a monk with saves, SR, self-healing, and the like.
With a 20 point build, I usually do the following:
Str 15
Dex 14
Con 14
Int 10
Wis 14
Cha 8I don't see how those stats aren't good enough to be an effective monk. 15 point buy would be a little harder. You don't need to start with an 18 strength to be effective.
A monk should have balanced stats which fits the athletic, wise, well-rounded monk.
Some of you focus way too much on maxing out stats even when doing so is completely unnecessary. Letting the fighter have the 16 or 18 strength doesn't make you any less as a monk with a 14.
I really see a lot of people undervaluing all the perks of being a monk with saves, SR, self-healing, and the like.
Monks don't really have self-healing, it's more an Emergency "HOLY S$++ I'M DIEING" healing. The only time one should really use the Ki Point heal is at the end of the day to top themselves off, to prevent death, or end bleed effects. Most of those situations would occur when the Monk is scouting, or without a healer nearby.
|
|
With a 20 point build, I usually do the following:
Str 15
Dex 14
Con 14
Int 10
Wis 14
Cha 8I don't see how those stats aren't good enough to be an effective monk. 15 point buy would be a little harder. You don't need to start with an 18 strength to be effective.
A monk should have balanced stats which fits the athletic, wise, well-rounded monk.
Some of you focus way too much on maxing out stats even when doing so is completely unnecessary. Letting the fighter have the 16 or 18 strength doesn't make you any less as a monk with a 14.
I really see a lot of people undervaluing all the perks of being a monk with saves, SR, self-healing, and the like.
These aren't good enough for an effective monk because little ranged support+AC14+melee dependence=dead monk. Instead, if you take a race like plumekith, you can have stats like
STR:12
DEX:18
CON:12
INT:10
WIS:18
CHA:7
Now you have AC 18 and a nice attack roll modifier (if you take weapons finesse) and when you get the 5k for an agile amulet of mighty fists, you get +4 to damage. If you combine this with fighting defensively, crane style at 3rd level, and blocking weapons at lower levels, you can get some moderate AC instead of terrible, somewhere around 21-23 depending on feats/weapons you are using. The saves are nice and the healing is a good enough class feature, when you compare it to the nothing that fighters/rogues get. SR isn't all that its cracked up to be though. Minmaxing your stats is needed with monks because otherwise you find massive piles of dead monk in non-society.
With a 20 point build, I usually do the following:
Str 15
Dex 14
Con 14
Int 10
Wis 14
Cha 8I don't see how those stats aren't good enough to be an effective monk. 15 point buy would be a little harder. You don't need to start with an 18 strength to be effective.
A monk should have balanced stats which fits the athletic, wise, well-rounded monk.
Some of you focus way too much on maxing out stats even when doing so is completely unnecessary. Letting the fighter have the 16 or 18 strength doesn't make you any less as a monk with a 14.
I really see a lot of people undervaluing all the perks of being a monk with saves, SR, self-healing, and the like.
what perks does the monk have that allow them to contribute and not merely survive?
SR is a double edged sword that makes you harder to heal or buff
the self healing is too expensive and doesn't heal enough to be viable
paladin and barbarian, have better saves, better AC, and deal more DPR than a monk can dream of.
and considering the monk needs a decent attack bonus to compensate for being one of only 2 3/4 bab classes with no way to augment their accuracy, a 15 is not enough strength to make them viable. unless you play an onispawn tiefling and blow your first feat on armor of the pit.
here is a viable 1st level onispawn tiefling monk
Str 17 (15+2)
Dex 14
Con 14
Int 12
Wis 16 (14+2)
Cha 5 (7-2)
spend your 4th level stat point on strength, wield a magic temple sword in both hands, take power attack at 3rd level. now you have a halfway viable damage dealing melee monk. or take the dragon style chain and pray your DM allows you to enchant one gauntlet to improve your unarmed damage and retain your monk damage, instead of houseruling it away.
With a 20 point build, I usually do the following:
Str 15
Dex 14
Con 14
Int 10
Wis 14
Cha 8I don't see how those stats aren't good enough to be an effective monk. 15 point buy would be a little harder. You don't need to start with an 18 strength to be effective.
A monk should have balanced stats which fits the athletic, wise, well-rounded monk.
Some of you focus way too much on maxing out stats even when doing so is completely unnecessary. Letting the fighter have the 16 or 18 strength doesn't make you any less as a monk with a 14.
I really see a lot of people undervaluing all the perks of being a monk with saves, SR, self-healing, and the like.
These aren't good enough for an effective monk because little ranged support+AC14+melee dependence=dead monk. Instead, if you take a race like plumekith, you can have stats like
STR:12
DEX:18
CON:12
INT:10
WIS:18
CHA:7Now you have AC 18 and a nice attack roll modifier (if you take weapons finesse) and when you get the 5k for an agile amulet of mighty fists, you get +4 to damage. If you combine this with fighting defensively, crane style at 3rd level, and blocking weapons at lower levels, you can get some moderate AC instead of terrible, somewhere around 21-23 depending on feats/weapons you are using. The saves are nice and the healing is a good enough class feature, when you compare it to the nothing that fighters/rogues get. SR isn't all that its cracked up to be though. Minmaxing your stats is needed with monks because otherwise you find massive piles of dead monk in non-society.
and then every foe ignores you because you can't deal viable damage and you can never bypass DR x/alignment. which is extremely common by the time you get the +3 equivalent or higher amulet. meaning foes still ignore you.
|
|
and then every foe ignores you because you can't deal viable damage and you can never bypass DR x/alignment. which is extremely common by the time you get the +3 equivalent or higher amulet. meaning foes still ignore you.
Martial Artist. Also, agile is a +1 bonus according to This page on the SRD.
That is the strength monk. I ignore the hard numbers because I don't like playing a monk that does not fit my image of what a monk is meant to do. The strength monk stands in one spot and hits hard. It ignores 90% of the fun stuff that Raith Shadar mentioned.And it has already been proven in other threads that an optimized monk can match an optimized fighter in both offense and defense.
It has also been proven that people ignore even hard numbers when they are contrary to personal belief.
Strength monk?
The last "Monk's Suck" thread had unarmed DEX build monks with high AC and saves dealing > 100 DPR at 12th level. Without using an archetype.
I'd like to point out that in that thread, they still didn't match the DPR of other classes.
Hell, I built a TWF-ing Ranger, something I had NEVER DONE BEFORE and hit ~120 DPR with it. Without factoring in FE or spells, if I remember correctly. Definitely not spells anyway.
Monks are all around harder to optimize than other classes for less reward.
Fun? Yes.
Balanced? No.
I've never understood why people can't make this distinction. Balancing a class will not make it less fun (unless it gets hard nerfed).
and then every foe ignores you because you can't deal viable damage and you can never bypass DR x/alignment. which is extremely common by the time you get the +3 equivalent or higher amulet. meaning foes still ignore you.Martial Artist. Also, agile is a +1 bonus according to This page on the SRD.
i know agile is +1 equivalent
but by the time you get +3-+5 worth of bonuses (+2 agile to +4 agile), lots of foes will have DR alignment, which will screw your unarmed damage drastically unless you specifically take the martial artist archetype, and the martial artist still does better with high STR, power attack, and a temple sword in both hands.
plus the martial artist works best against one foe at a time, but doesn't get the Ki powers that most monk archetypes depend upon.
Ki powers that give you an extra attack per round, Ki powers that give you barkskin, ki leech, or restoration.
plus the martial artist's ability to ignore DR, requires you to roll every round to use it, DC 10+CR, with a bonus equal to monk level+wis mod, and no way to boost it. meaning it is an ability you cannot truly rely on a sizeable portion of the time.
And it has already been proven in other threads that an optimized monk can match an optimized fighter in both offense and defense.
I am intrigued by this. With all sincerity, I would request a link to such a build/thread.