Why all the monk hate?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

1 to 50 of 900 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I mean, I get it to a degree, you have to spreading your stats out razor thin, you don't get as many hit dice as a fighter but still have to be up front to be effective...

But I haven't had the problems others have. Particularly with the improvements from 3.5.

You don't wear armor, so that that is more gold to spend on enhancements. If you get your Wisdom up, you not only raise your AC, but your Stunning Fist DC. Not to mention all the wisdom based skills. And Bracers of Armor aren't that expensive. Most of my monks have AC just below fighters, without any of the armor check penalties.

Your primary weapon is free. Yes you will need other weapons for DR, but what fighting class doesn't? And sure amulets of mighty fist are expensive, but only as expensive as enhancing two weapons for your two weapon fighting build that is equivalent to flurry of blows.

You want feats, you get a feat at 1st and 2nd, then every four after that. Only fighters get more. A 2nd level human monk already has 4 bonus feats. Plus you get fighter level Combat Maneuver Bonuses, so all those "improved" feats are actually useful. And did I mention you can get some of these feats even if you don't have the prerequisites?

You get the best saves in the game, plus evasion so when you make your ridiculous saves you take no damage. And on top of that still mind gives you a +2 bonus against enchantments.

Sure you "only" get 4 skill points a level, and with Int as a dump stat you aren't going to get many more. But having no armor check penalties means your DEX and STR based skills are higher than most. And of course your wisdom based skills are based off your primary.

By 5th level you are immune to all diseases. By 7th you can heal yourself, by 11th you are immune to all poisons. At 13th you have spell resistance 23, which goes up by 1 each level.

And did I mention stunning fist? DC = 10 + 1/2 your level + your wisdom
modifier to stun someone a number of times a day equal to your monk level. At 4th you can fatigue them, at 8th sicken them, at 12th stagger then, at 16th blind or deafen them.

Or just kill them. Because at 15th level with the same save DC as above you have a fort save or die attack once a day.

Also, did I mention Abundant Step is now a move action, and that you can do it multiple times a day. So, in the same round I can Abundant Step next to you and hit you with a stunning fist, without taking a special feat.

So why do people think this class is underpowered?

Shadow Lodge

*sigh, I'll bite*

Because for pure DPS it lags pretty significantly behind the other melee classes (as outlined in the DPS Olympics). And regardless of how you feel about the class (I feel much as you do for example), that is a pretty significant disadvantage for a class that's supposed to be one of the meleers.

If you're willing to accept your sub-par DPS and want a class that can do all the things you mentioned, then yes, the Monk is more than capable of doing some things other classes are incapable of doing, but for pure DPS, they're pretty lackluster.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Pathfinder kind of fixed one of the biggest Monk problems in APG (brass knuckles ftw, 3.5 Monks were screwed upside down by any DR).

However, the other big problem remains. You have a class who relies on making a full attack to be in any way combat-viable, while half of your class features go a long way to make you the most mobile class in the game. Which doesn't synergize with your primary offensive ability at all.

Not to mention some of your class abilities are simply laughable (Tongue of Sun and Moon ? Slow Fall ?).

Of course, being the most MAD class in the game doesn't help.

Liberty's Edge

MisterSlanky wrote:

*sigh, I'll bite*

Because for pure DPS it lags pretty significantly behind the other melee classes (as outlined in the DPS Olympics). And regardless of how you feel about the class (I feel much as you do for example), that is a pretty significant disadvantage for a class that's supposed to be one of the meleers.

If you're willing to accept your sub-par DPS and want a class that can do all the things you mentioned, then yes, the Monk is more than capable of doing some things other classes are incapable of doing, but for pure DPS, they're pretty lackluster.

I agree they aren't just "here to hurt stuff" as the DPS Olympics motto goes. The focus in playing a monk is not as a primary damage dealer.

Monks don't fit the 4E pushed "Role" model. They aren't a "tank" but they can hold and position enemies even better than a fighter when you consider their mobility, immunities and high saves. We used my monk to spring traps when we didn't have rogues, as he was the most likely to make the saves, be immune to the effects, etc...

I think people get frustrated that it doesn't deal damage like a fighter, and forget that it isn't supposed to. It is like comparing Bard's to Sorcerers.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

So, the Monk is supposed to jump around really high and clap his hands while playing harmonica ? Yaaay ...

Except the grappler Monk builds, which are actually useful in combat as long as somebody doesn't have Freedom of Movement on them ?

Liberty's Edge

Gorbacz wrote:

Pathfinder kind of fixed one of the biggest Monk problems in APG (brass knuckles ftw, 3.5 Monks were screwed upside down by any DR).

However, the other big problem remains. You have a class who relies on making a full attack to be in any way combat-viable, while half of your class features go a long way to make you the most mobile class in the game. Which doesn't synergize with your primary offensive ability at all.

Not to mention some of your class abilities are simply laughable (Tongue of Sun and Moon ? Slow Fall ?).

Of course, being the most MAD class in the game doesn't help.

Damage viable, not combat viable. Bardic Music doesn't do a lot of damage, but no one would say it isn't combat viable.

Mobility is for stunning fist. If you are fighting a caster, the monk runs up and stuns him (no spells that round against anyone in the party) then next round the flurry comes into play for the damage dealing part.

Big Baddie shows up and is on the other side of the battlefield. Monk engages before anyone else can and holds him there for a round or two, protecting everyone else and keeping him away from the casters, monk takes his lumps (or not if it is a poison or disease focused enemy), then full retreats all the way back to the healer leaving the bad guy still on the other side of the battlefield. Everyone else gets a safe round to do what they do, when otherwise Big Baddie would be on them making full round attacks on casters.

A well played monk makes everyone in the group better.

But yes, Slow Fall is generally pointless (until you fail that climb check...)


I see Monks more of a disabler or distracter that a front-line fighter. They work great in taking out that nasty spell caster that's messing with your tanks or keeping your caster pinned down. My biggest contention with them is when you start getting out of the medium humanoid races. Hard to grapple a Fire Elemental/Stone Giant/WereBear. CMD was a much needed change but still just seems way to inadequate once you get out of the humanoid races. A ring of Freedom of Movement has become the one must have pieces of equipment every character I EVER make in PF will have. Could just be our GM though.

I digress on that and back to the monk. I really like the monk, being able to not depend on weapons and armor is a HUGE plus. Surprised in the middle of the night, no armor on and your axe is across the campsite? Heh, no problem I just need (or don't need) the shirt I slept in and I'm as good as I was when the group was awake and ready for a fight. Saves are awesome, BAB and # of attacks with flurry is sick, healing yourself is always nice. To me they're very situational and you can't go into playing a monk thinking you're gonna Bruce Lee everything and be the best fighter. You play a disabler and support. Play with the trip, disarm, grapple route and I think they become more fun.

Liberty's Edge

Chazmyr wrote:

I see Monks more of a disabler or distracter that a front-line fighter. They work great in taking out that nasty spell caster that's messing with your tanks or keeping your caster pinned down. My biggest contention with them is when you start getting out of the medium humanoid races. Hard to grapple a Fire Elemental/Stone Giant/WereBear. CMD was a much needed change but still just seems way to inadequate once you get out of the humanoid races. A ring of Freedom of Movement has become the one must have pieces of equipment every character I EVER make in PF will have. Could just be our GM though.

I digress on that and back to the monk. I really like the monk, being able to not depend on weapons and armor is a HUGE plus. Surprised in the middle of the night, no armor on and your axe is across the campsite? Heh, no problem I just need (or don't need) the shirt I slept in and I'm as good as I was when the group was awake and ready for a fight. Saves are awesome, BAB and # of attacks with flurry is sick, healing yourself is always nice. To me they're very situational and you can't go into playing a monk thinking you're gonna Bruce Lee everything and be the best fighter. You play a disabler and support. Play with the trip, disarm, grapple route and I think they become more fun.

+1

Shadow Lodge

Gorbacz wrote:
So, the Monk is supposed to jump around really high and clap his hands while playing harmonica ? Yaaay ...

They don't have the skill points to waste on perform: wind instrument, remember?


ciretose wrote:
I think people get frustrated that it doesn't deal damage like a fighter, and forget that it isn't supposed to. It is like comparing Bard's to Sorcerers.

Whenever there's a discussion about what a monk is "supposed" to do, it ends up that the only things the monk shines at (compared to other classes) are:

  • running fast
  • having good saves

That's it. For anything else, you're better off with another class.

I think some people are dazzled by the sheer number of class abilities the monk gets and subconsciously think that "more abilities = more powerful", somehow. It doesn't necessarily work out that way, though.


It's hard to be snarky when your disarmed, tripped and blind >dirty trick<. As for DR monk unarmed strike gain types as they level silver/ magic/lawful.

Liberty's Edge

hogarth wrote:
ciretose wrote:
I think people get frustrated that it doesn't deal damage like a fighter, and forget that it isn't supposed to. It is like comparing Bard's to Sorcerers.

Whenever there's a discussion about what a monk is "supposed" to do, it ends up that the only things the monk shines at (compared to other classes) are:

  • running fast
  • having good saves

That's it. For anything else, you're better off with another class.

I think some people are dazzled by the sheer number of class abilities the monk gets and subconsciously think that "more abilities = more powerful", somehow. It doesn't necessarily work out that way, though.

When you play a monk, you do something different every combat. And that can be challenging to a new player, or someone who likes to have a very defined "role".

Every battle is different. If you are fighting casters, you do one thing, if you are fighting a big ugly you have another roll entirely. If poison or disease are in play, another completely different roll...

That is the thing about having so many class skills/feats. You can do a lot of things. But if you aren't good at figuring out what your party needs in a given encounter, you won't be good at playing a monk.

Some other classes can do specific things much better. But monks can do a lot of different things, depending on what you need in a given situation.

Most "bad" monk builds over specialize and get frustrated when they can't do what they built it for. If you do that you are missing the whole point of the class. You are never going to out fight a fighter, but the fighter can get dropped by poison, disease, will saves, etc...you are never going to out spell a caster, but you can stun him before you beat the crap out of him.

Monks aren't shiny sports cars. They are reliable trucks.


What I've seen in my experience is that player enjoying the monk are those able to think outside the box, and in situations and scenarios with a DM more skilled of "duh, so there are 3 monstars.."

Otherwise, you fail miserably. For those who do not like some monk class features, I strongly suggest to take a look in the APG.

Sovereign Court

As for DPR, has anyone yet made a four winds monk with aspect of the tiger?

Once per hour, your full flurry on a charge, 8 attacks (ki point), 4d6 or 5d6 extra damage per hit via Elemental Fist (on top of a enhanced brass knuckles that costs no more than a standard weapon costs to enhance...).


ciretose wrote:

When you play a monk, you do something different every combat. And that can be challenging to a new player, or someone who likes to have a very defined "role".

Every battle is different. If you are fighting casters, you do one thing, if you are fighting a big ugly you have another roll entirely. If poison or disease are in play, another completely different roll...

Huh? How does your role change from fight to fight any more than a fighter or TWF ranger's role would change from fight to fight?

(Answer: I don't think it does, unless you mean that some roles involve running fast and some don't.)

EDIT: Don't get me wrong -- I like playing a monk. But the idea that monks have some truly unique niche that isn't covered by a fighter or ranger (say) is just not true, in my experience.


I think part of the reason monks get a bad rep is how they worked in 3.0-3.5. In order for the monk to do damage, he needs to hit with his massive amount of attacks. The 3/4 BAB in 3E didn't help that. Every missed attack hurts the monk a lot.

The other issue is that many people don't realize that the monk needs to be built right or his damage will be under par. If you ignore damage bonuses, then you pass up the chance to do a lot of damage. If you make a "dex monk" and keep a low strength, its the same as keeping a low strength on any other melee character. You need to have some other class role or you are really gimping yourself.

That said the DPR olympics eventually came out with a monk that had damage on par with a rogue, but less than a fighter.

Does a monk need to be a frontline fighter? He can sorta, spending Ki on AC. Or he can jump behind the enemy and be a flanking partner which is what I think his real role is, that is, to harry the opponents and help the fighter types hit better. Rogues get even better synergy as monks can out match them in maneuverability, and can either flank OR stun opponents to let the rogue SA them mercilessly.


I think my main problem with the monk is it's lack-luster "To-Hit" area. The class is supposed to be up-front, melee and the like but with 3/4 BAB it's hard to hit those bigger guys.

I just helped a friend roll up a Fire Genasi monk/wizard/elightened fist and honestly, I don't expect the character to live past a few encounters. At level 11 (rest of party is lvl 12) his attacks are +11/+6 (+10/+10/+5 w/ flurry) and.....yea he's not hitting anything uless our cleric is putting some serious buffs on him.

Had the made the BAB full, taken down one of his Saving throws then I might be inclined to say the class was really good. It has lots of flavor, just can't back it up on the Mechanical side.


Things like slow fall and perform skills came about because Mr. Gygax was old enough to watch Kung Fu with David Carradine... and his Monk in the west Character had many of these abilities so they were added in for flavor... for the rollplaying aspect. Watch Kung Fu and Kung Fu the Legend Continues with David Carradine and you get to see the Monk in action and you realize why the AD&D monk was designed the way it was and how it got to be the way it is :)

The fast moving, wandering wise mystic who can stealthily climb and not have problems falling, and is a super kung fu fighter, and can heal, play musical insterments, and at one point had dim mak vibrating palm strike... etc...

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
MisterSlanky wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
So, the Monk is supposed to jump around really high and clap his hands while playing harmonica ? Yaaay ...
They don't have the skill points to waste on perform: wind instrument, remember?

You can play an instrument without skill. No one said anything about playing the harmonica WELL. In fact many monasteries hire the worst performers they can find as concentration exercises for the novice. :)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The hate for the monk comes from the fact that its two main assets: Mobility and furry of blows, completely exclude each other. The class is all about mobility, but you... have to stand still to do any damage.


Diffan wrote:

I think my main problem with the monk is it's lack-luster "To-Hit" area. The class is supposed to be up-front, melee and the like but with 3/4 BAB it's hard to hit those bigger guys.

I just helped a friend roll up a Fire Genasi monk/wizard/elightened fist and honestly, I don't expect the character to live past a few encounters. At level 11 (rest of party is lvl 12) his attacks are +11/+6 (+10/+10/+5 w/ flurry) and.....yea he's not hitting anything uless our cleric is putting some serious buffs on him.

Had the made the BAB full, taken down one of his Saving throws then I might be inclined to say the class was really good. It has lots of flavor, just can't back it up on the Mechanical side.

He only has a +1 to hit it seems. That's really his problem. What's his strength?


MisterSlanky wrote:

*sigh, I'll bite*

Because for pure DPS it lags pretty significantly behind the other melee classes (as outlined in the DPS Olympics).

That'd be a pretty significant argument if the monk were suppossed to be a DPSer. He's a melee character, but that doesn't make him a DPSer.

You can build a monk with a high dex, improved init, and capable of very easily doing trips, grapples, disarms, etc. - not to mention an insane Acrobatics roll. A very combat effective way to play the monk is to watch the combat mat and look at where the weaknesses are. If your Rogue needs someone to help him flank, you can do that. If the enemy archer/spell caster has your friend pinned down, you can close and dirty trick (blind) the archer. If the fighter isn't hitting quite as often as he should, you can trip the enemy.
And, when eveyone is doing fine, you can flurry of blows (with a ki point and Medussa's wrath, you get a truly insane number of attacks per round against someone who could be prone, stunned, blind, etc.)
A very poorly combat effective way to play a monk is to pretend you're just another melee-er.


Diffan wrote:

I think my main problem with the monk is it's lack-luster "To-Hit" area. The class is supposed to be up-front, melee and the like but with 3/4 BAB it's hard to hit those bigger guys.

I just helped a friend roll up a Fire Genasi monk/wizard/elightened fist and honestly, I don't expect the character to live past a few encounters. At level 11 (rest of party is lvl 12) his attacks are +11/+6 (+10/+10/+5 w/ flurry) and.....yea he's not hitting anything uless our cleric is putting some serious buffs on him.

Had the made the BAB full, taken down one of his Saving throws then I might be inclined to say the class was really good. It has lots of flavor, just can't back it up on the Mechanical side.

I don't understand why he's not hitting anything. The average AC for CR 7-13 is only 22 (from the Bestiary, NPCs are probably about the same if not a little lower). That's well within reason for the monk to be effective. Oh, and multiclassing the monk and wizard is going to hurt both classes perform in their original roles. The same character who is a monk only would be starting with +9/+9/+4/+4/–1 for his flurry of blows. I would assume that he can have at least +6 to hit bringing him to +15/+15/+10/+10/+5 before using any tactics like flanking or being on higher ground. I do have to say that it will be cool when he can use disintegrate as part of his attack sequence. Watching the enemies poof like Buffy's vampires will be fun.


My problem with monks is that they are defensively geared, which doesn't help the party. For instance, monks have all good saves, and like you said, better oppurtunities to enhance their ability scores, so they have excellent saves, as well as Spell resistance later on. Say I'm a badass villain with my posse of evildoers. I would target any other member of the PC's rather than the monk. Why? He is much less likely to cause serious damage, and he is harder to effect with spells and attacks. Better to disable the fighter or chop up the mage. Because he's not a -threat- he's not pulling his weight. Compare this to a paladin. He also has excellent defenses, but he has the Kill me now or lose power of smite evil. Thus he generates enough attention that his defenses are useful to the party.

I've seen some damage optimised monks that go against this sterotype, but I still feel that they are necessary to optimise in order to be effective.


Big Stupid Fighter wrote:
I would target any other member of the PC's rather than the monk.

No, you wouldn't. Why? Because he'd have you in a lock, repeatedly bashing your head against the ground, saying stuff like "nod if you think you're a little pansy!" :P


Big Stupid Fighter wrote:

My problem with monks is that they are defensively geared, which doesn't help the party. For instance, monks have all good saves, and like you said, better oppurtunities to enhance their ability scores, so they have excellent saves, as well as Spell resistance later on. Say I'm a badass villain with my posse of evildoers. I would target any other member of the PC's rather than the monk. Why? He is much less likely to cause serious damage, and he is harder to effect with spells and attacks. Better to disable the fighter or chop up the mage. Because he's not a -threat- he's not pulling his weight. Compare this to a paladin. He also has excellent defenses, but he has the Kill me now or lose power of smite evil. Thus he generates enough attention that his defenses are useful to the party.

I've seen some damage optimised monks that go against this sterotype, but I still feel that they are necessary to optimise in order to be effective.

This is the same kind of logic which causes enemies not to target Bards. They ignore the fact that the Bard makes the other classes a lot more dangerous while the Monk makes the enemy a lot less dangerous.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
The hate for the monk comes from the fact that its two main assets: Mobility and furry of blows, completely exclude each other. The class is all about mobility, but you... have to stand still to do any damage.

I read this a lot of times.. but you are not forced to use all your abiliies at once. It's like saying wizard suck because has dominate monsters and fireball, and makes no sense you fireball monster dominated.

High mobility means you deliver an effective attack or maneuver in a long range. Flurry of blows means you deal damage when enemies do not move away.

And an Order of Dragon Cavalier can help ;)

Or a witch can help the Stuning Fist. Maybe Monk needs more skill and more party cooperation (and his MAD does not help).


KaeYoss wrote:


No, you wouldn't. Why? Because he'd have you in a lock, repeatedly bashing your head against the ground, saying stuff like "nod if you think you're a little pansy!" :P

That would be embarrassing, but likely non fatal with my thick head.

LilithsThrall wrote:


This is the same kind of logic which causes enemies not to target Bards. They ignore the fact that the Bard makes the other classes a lot more dangerous while the Monk makes the enemy a lot less dangerous.

Oh, I see bards as a true threat. They are the best combat multiplier for a group in the game. What I fail to see is how the monk makes the enemy a lot less dangerous in a similar way. A wizard or sorceror would be excellent in that role, but I'm open to persuasion on how a monk would do it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
The hate for the monk comes from the fact that its two main assets: Mobility and furry of blows, completely exclude each other. The class is all about mobility, but you... have to stand still to do any damage.

I wouldn't say exclude. When I play a monk, I first use the mobility to get close to the spell casters, archers, or provide flanking for the rogue and then I stand still for a round or two to deal damage.

The frustration is that often the monk's biggest contribution is not causing damage but preventing the other side from being able to inflict damage. I once spent most of a combat keeping an enemy archer grappled. Was not able to inflict much damage but kept him from using rapid shot on the party with a strength bow.


Curious wrote:

The frustration is that often the monk's biggest contribution is not causing damage but preventing the other side from being able to inflict damage. I once spent most of a combat keeping an enemy archer grappled. Was not able to inflict much damage but kept him from using rapid shot on the party with a strength bow.

I agree that grappling can sometimes be useful, but a monk is not really any better at grappling than a fighter or ranger with the correct feats.


Big Stupid Fighter wrote:
KaeYoss wrote:


No, you wouldn't. Why? Because he'd have you in a lock, repeatedly bashing your head against the ground, saying stuff like "nod if you think you're a little pansy!" :P

That would be embarrassing, but likely non fatal with my thick head.

LilithsThrall wrote:


This is the same kind of logic which causes enemies not to target Bards. They ignore the fact that the Bard makes the other classes a lot more dangerous while the Monk makes the enemy a lot less dangerous.
Oh, I see bards as a true threat. They are the best combat multiplier for a group in the game. What I fail to see is how the monk makes the enemy a lot less dangerous in a similar way. A wizard or sorceror would be excellent in that role, but I'm open to persuasion on how a monk would do it.

It's hard to talk specifics when we don't have specific characters to discuss. But, just to pick an example, I was playing a Monk in a party of 13th level characters. We came across a Beholder. I had a +11 to my initiative. I went first. I moved about 35 feet, using Acrobatics to tumble over the enemy's defensive line to get to the Beholder, and did a dirty trick (with manuever training, agile manuevers, and my +7 mod on Dex, I rendered the Beholder blind for several rounds before anybody else had a chance to do anything). This was significant, for the dungeon had several Beholders whose disintegrate beams had been messing us over pretty badly (we'd already lost many characters due to disintegration). Oh, and with wind stance, I now had 20% concealment. The Beholder was the next in initiative line.

If I had been playing a Wizard, instead, I wouldn't have acted first (the Beholder would have probably did his disintegration thing before anybody else could do anything) and the Beholder would have gotten a saving throw against a Blindness spell.

On another occasion, we opened a door to see a large room in front of us and far on the other end of this room was a spell casting monster. If we charged in, it would take us two rounds of being hit with spells before we could close with the beast. I went first in the combat (naturally, given my +11 to initiative) and I dimn doored and hit it with a stunning fist. This gave the party to organize and make their approach. On the following round, I flurried using a ki point and Medussa's wrath and relying on my SR and high saves. This gave the party the time to close in for the kill.


Kaiyanwang wrote:


High mobility means you deliver an effective attack or maneuver in a long range. Flurry of blows means you deal damage when enemies do not move away.

Exactly. If the Monk stands still, he is no less powerful than a TWF Martial character (Rangers have an obvious edge against Favored enemies but are basically the same as Monks against 'vanilla' opponents; Fighters have an edge because of Weapon Training, but it's true that they have to split statistics between Str AND Dex to be fully viable, so this more or less evens up). In such a case, the Monk is better suited to be Strength-based, obviously, because larger dice don't compensate for larger flat bonuses.

If the Monk has to move, he has to rely on Combat Maneuvers, which use the Monk level as BaB. Invest early in a couple of Bonus Monk Feats like Improved Disarm, Improved Trip or Improved Grapple. Better yet, try to aim for taking the Greater version of those feats (Greater Grapple is the easiest to obtain, since it doesn't rely on Intelligence for the Combat Expertise prerequisite feat, nor it requires Power Attack as a prerequisite feat, although a 13 Str should be a minimum to aim for as a Monk).

A Monk who wants to aim for DPR should be Strength-based, with Power Attack and a couple of 'backup feats' like Vital Strike (greater dice are the Vital Strike best friend), Improved Vital Strike (sadly no Greater Vital Strike due to 'real' BaB requirement), Improved Grapple*,
(*= Bonus feat)
Greater Grapple, and maybe Improved Bull Rush*+Greater Bull Rush.
A Monk who wants to be defensive-based should aim for maximum Dexterity, Weapon Finesse, Agile Maneuvers, Improved Grapple*+Greater Grapple, and one of the various other 'tricks' (Improved Disarm, Improved Trip, Improved Feint). If he could also afford 13 Intelligence, obviously Combat Expertise and the Greater version of one of his Improved XXX bonus feats would be VERY handy. Or he could aim for Combat Reflexes, Lunge and/or APG Combat Patrol (though it would require Dodge and Mobility) to become a battlefield controller able to Disarm or Trip multiple enemies in his way.

One of the players I'm GMing with has built a 'Defensive Monk' which is a Grappling machine, and believe me, even if his DPR is quite low (he could have obtained a WAY better DPR result being Str based, but his AC, Reflex, and Dex-based skills like Stealth and Acrobatics would have suffered), when he locks on a target... that target is screwed. And with the help of a handy Wand of Mage Armor (which he gives to the party's Witch or Summoner to have the spell cast on him), his AC is 34... at 10th level (not counting the Ki point for raising it even higher).

Just my 2c.


hogarth wrote:
Curious wrote:

The frustration is that often the monk's biggest contribution is not causing damage but preventing the other side from being able to inflict damage. I once spent most of a combat keeping an enemy archer grappled. Was not able to inflict much damage but kept him from using rapid shot on the party with a strength bow.

I agree that grappling can sometimes be useful, but a monk is not really any better at grappling than a fighter or ranger with the correct feats.

True - but those class are generally speaking less mobile and this could matter a lot.

The saves could mean the monk is less easily shut down while is doing the job, too.

Dark Archive

Monks are only really sub-par DPR when you are playing in a group with fully optimized fighters, druids, and paladins.

They are quite MAD but to mean that just tells me that there a NUMBER of ways you can build a monk instead of just dumping 18 in one stat and shooting d20s out of your nose for high damage every round. If you plan ahead and have a lick of common sense anyway you would know that you are going to end up grabbing a Guided weapon anyway, one that will probably be silver, and eventually adamantite so that really kills 2 birds with one stone, that being your primary AC stat now adds to your damage rolls and it will bypass DR.


LilithsThrall wrote:


Good anecdotes

I agree, it is hard to talk specifics without specific characters. Your monk was significant in those examples, but I remain unconvinced that these show the prowess of a monk. A wizard built for initiative could could rival or exceed a monk, as well as having equal ability to disable it at that level. Blindess as you said is an option, but risky, Sleet Storm or Stinking Cloud would be more effective, disabling the beholders offense while allowing the party to organise. These are only 3rd level spells however, if we are risking a check, like Dirty Trick, Flesh to Stone or Baleful Polymorph would work much better, while yielding more satisfyingly permanent results.

Of course, Dirty Trick can be used without consuming resources. My main concern with the Monk lies in its ability to only disable one foe at a time. If that is your goal, I feel just killing the creature, through attacks is a better way to go. Otherwise you are just trading one characters actions to negate one monsters. Full spellcasters who can disable multiple foes at a time are more suited to the role.

This is in my opinion the problem. They do not excel at any role, which leaves the question of what their role is.
I have seen people state that they are disablers, but if that is your aim, there are better characters for it, who can also be more versatile.
I hope I articulated that correctly, 7 int and all.


Big Stupid Fighter wrote:
A wizard built for initiative could could rival or exceed a monk

Is your Wizard going to prioritize Intelligence or Dex? Because my monk had a maxed out Dex.

You can't max out everything. There is a limit to WBL, to feats, to point buy, etc.
If you're going to argue that a Wizard can excel at everything simultaneously, just let me know that's your stance so I won't be wasting my time.


LilithsThrall wrote:


Is your Wizard going to prioritize Intelligence or Dex? Because my monk had a maxed out Dex.

You can't max out everything. There is a limit to WBL, to feats, to point buy, etc.
If you're going to argue that a Wizard can excel at everything simultaneously, just let me know that's your stance so I won't be wasting my time.

No nothing as silly as that, merely if he wishes to be good at initiative, to pick the divination school specialisation.


If an evil spellcaster is protected by an AMF and is away, the wizard could do less (not NOTHING, because one should never understimate thinking outside the box).

The dirty trick above works with targets immune to polymoprh, to pietrification, or in an AMF.

The game is full of diverse situations. Not to say that monk could have more, but the thing is less simple than as you put it :)


Kaiyanwang wrote:

If an evil spellcaster is protected by an AMF and is away, the wizard could do less (not NOTHING, because one should never understimate thinking outside the box).

The dirty trick above works with targets immune to polymoprh, to pietrification, or in an AMF.

The game is full of diverse situations. Not to say that monk could have more, but the thing is less simple than as you put it :)

Exactly. That's why I think it's pointless to discuss the two classes without having specific examples.

Big Stupid Fighter, please create a sample Diviner so we have something concrete to discuss. I've got a 13th level monk available. So, please create the wizard at 13th level.


Kaiyanwang wrote:

If an evil spellcaster is protected by an AMF and is away, the wizard could do less (not NOTHING, because one should never understimate thinking outside the box).

The dirty trick above works with targets immune to polymoprh, to pietrification, or in an AMF.

The game is full of diverse situations. Not to say that monk could have more, but the thing is less simple than as you put it :)

True enough, on mulling over Liliths example, I think one of the advantages of the monk in that situation is his ability to do it not just in different situations, but continually with no down sides, even if only to one person.

I'm considering now whether a monk is the best user of Combat Maneuvers.


LilithsThrall wrote:


Exactly. That's why I think it's pointless to discuss the two classes without having specific examples.

Big Stupid Fighter, please create a sample Diviner so we have something concrete to discuss. I've got a 13th level monk available. So, please create the wizard at 13th level.

Ok, its 2AM where I am, so I'll need to sleep first, but if you wouldn't mind waiting a few hours I can do that. I'm not sure what it would prove though, my point is that the monk is incapable of disabling multiple people at a time, which I consider critical. What would statting up the characters prove? In any case I'll have a 13th level diviner wizard for you within 24 hours.


Big Stupid Fighter wrote:
my point is that the monk is incapable of disabling multiple people at a time, which I consider critical.

Then I agree with your point. I don't, however, agree that it is critical.


The monk is unable to disable multiple DISTANT enemies.

One distant enemy or multiple nearby are vulnerable to the monk.

A well managed maneuver/stun flurry can spread some mess in the enemy lines.


LilithsThrall wrote:


Then I agree with your point. I don't, however, agree that it is critical.

Very well, lets discuss it. I think it is critical, due to the action economy in the game. Your monk very impressively neutralises his foes because he has specialised in it. But he can only disable one person a round. A spellcaster, it doesn't really matter which class, can also disable opponents by specialising in doing so. However, since they aren't limited by grapple/combat maneuver rules, they can disable many more opponents. Often this won't be necessary, as with your spellcaster example, but often it will. Therefore I would hesitate before making a monk a disabler, as he is going to be less useful in it than what another class would be. Monks with Cornugon Smash/ Stunning Fist Medusas Wrath can cause alot of damage, but in this role too, there are better choices.

So I am still confused as to what they are meant to do.


Kaiyanwang wrote:
hogarth wrote:


I agree that grappling can sometimes be useful, but a monk is not really any better at grappling than a fighter or ranger with the correct feats.
True - but those class are generally speaking less mobile and this could matter a lot.

A fighter who wanted to focus on being mobile could likely be just as mobile as a monk -- but why would he? Boots of Striding & Spring and/or Haste (and/or flight, at higher levels) is usually plenty.


Big Stupid Fighter wrote:
A spellcaster, it doesn't really matter which class, can also disable opponents by specialising in doing so.

Let's look at this.

You mentioned sleet storm to stop the Beholder.
The Dirty Trick my monk did didn't hinder the rest of the party from attacking the Beholder. But if a sleet storm had been cast instead, noone could close in melee with the Beholder without being blinded and noone could use ranged weapons because the Beholder would have 100% concealment. Further, while the party was trying to figure out how to hurt the Beholder, the Beholder could be moving out of the area of effect.
What you'll notice is that the save or suck spells that the wizard is capable of either a.) generally don't have significant penalties to them or b.) limit the party's options. So, effects which disable large groups all at once aren't as great as you might assume (I'm not saying they suck, just that they aren't as great as you might assume.)
On the other hand, if you've played the game long enough, you develop the ability to sense turning points in a combat. The optimized monk senses those can be and makes sure they happen in his favor.


LilithsThrall wrote:
Big Stupid Fighter wrote:
A spellcaster, it doesn't really matter which class, can also disable opponents by specialising in doing so.

Let's look at this.

You mentioned sleet storm to stop the Beholder.
The Dirty Trick my monk did didn't hinder the rest of the party from attacking the Beholder. But if a sleet storm had been cast instead, noone could close in melee with the Beholder without being blinded and noone could use ranged weapons because the Beholder would have 100% concealment. Further, while the party was trying to figure out how to hurt the Beholder, the Beholder could be moving out of the area of effect.
What you'll notice is that the save or suck spells that the wizard is capable of either a.) generally don't have significant penalties to them or b.) limit the party's options. So, effects which disable large groups all at once aren't as great as you might assume (I'm not saying they suck, just that they aren't as great as you might assume.)
On the other hand, if you've played the game long enough, you develop the ability to sense turning points in a combat. The optimized monk senses those can be and makes sure they happen in his favor.

The optimized wizard also senses those turning points. From his floating chair near the back of the room. :P

The point is that when you use sleet storm, you place it so that the dangerous creature is disabled and has to spend a round or two moving out of it. This gives the party time to decide on a course of action, act on the course of action and generally put in motion a plan. Honestly, sleet storm isn't a good choice for a beholder since it's main oomph comes from its free action eye lasers, so if you did use it you have to make sure it uses a) all of it's movement so it can't turn and fire more than 3 eye lasers during its movement and b)that it's facing away from the party when it comes out of sleet storm. So, that requires a lot more than just melee planning-- you definitely need a very strong tactical spell choice for that, and it's up to the individual caster to decide what might work and what might not. But sleet storm is good-- difficult terrain and it blocks line of sight. Not a lot of things you can do there without focusing a fort save. Assuming it's a beholder, not a gauth, and it comes with friends so it's a +CR encounter so I'm maybe level 13 and I knew that the party was about to eat an artillery barrage of eye lasers, I'd use power word: blind to blind it for 1d4+1 rounds. No save.

Your monk did the same thing, but you didn't disable the beholder-- you just gave it 50% concealment on you for one action in its round. Eye lasers for the beholder are a free action... so, it removes dirty trick as a move (if you have improved or don't have the dirty trick feat), or a standard (if you have greater dirty trick) and then just shoots everyone with eye lasers anyways. And it bites you if you didn't have greater, and since bite isn't a ranged attack your wind stance doesn't matter.

Your GM was being kind to you if this didn't happen. Which is part of the game-- having fun. But don't act like this part of the game-- the rigid, steely and cold optimization no-fun-allowed zone thought exercises-- are able to quantify such an alien concept as "letting someone's actions be more effective so that they have more fun."

Another quick aside-- you stunning fisted someone after using abundant step? It acts just like dimension door and ends your action if you use it. It's a dumb mistake in the book so most people play with being able to dim door with abundant step and act, but just saying, it's not that way in the way the rules are written.


Ice Titan wrote:
Your monk did the same thing, but you didn't disable the beholder-- you just gave it 50% concealment on you for one action in its round.

No, like I said (and I truly do hate having to repeat myself), I blinded him for multiple rounds without impacting the ability of the rest of the party to close into melee and start attacking him.


Thats true. The party can't attack the beholder, but Sleet Storm takes the beholder out of the fight, and, most importantly, divides the enemy. The beholder is in the sleet storm for two rounds minimum. You mentioned tumbling over a defensive line, in that time your friendly party members have the oppurtunity to overwhelm the defenders, and prepare for when the beholder escapes the spell. Archers should ready actions, spellcasters cast buffs, ready a spell, I'll jump into the fray and get ready to hit it with some pointy metal while dealing with its friends.

All with the benefit of not rolling anything too. You are right, the disadvantage of sleet storm is you can't attack the creature, but if you know how to use it, it will turn battles. Also, this is only a third level spell, any 6th level arcane caster could do this. The options for this kind of action are much greater for a 13th level character.

I'm going to return to this thread in the morning, I look forward to seeing where this discussion leads.


LilithsThrall wrote:
Ice Titan wrote:
Your monk did the same thing, but you didn't disable the beholder-- you just gave it 50% concealment on you for one action in its round.
No, like I said (and I truly do hate having to repeat myself), I blinded him for multiple rounds without impacting the ability of the rest of the party to close into melee and start attacking him.

The beholder can (and I truly do hate having to repeat myself) remove that blindness with a move action or a standard action on his turn and then use his free action eye lasers anyways.

1 to 50 of 900 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Why all the monk hate? All Messageboards