Seriously, why?
They need 4 stats to be of any use to the party.
Dumping STR means no real damage
Dumping DEX means you get hit by everything because you cant wear armor
Dumping CON means you can't take hits at all
Dumping WIS means no Ki pool, stunning fist, or AC
Problem... help
Treantmonk's Guide to Monks
Huh. It leaded me to d20pfsrd.com showing Treantmonk's Guide to Monks but the rest is blank as if some ogre ate the content.
Seriously, why?
They need 4 stats to be of any use to the party.
Dumping STR means no real damage
Dumping DEX means you get hit by everything because you cant wear armor
Dumping CON means you can't take hits at all
Dumping WIS means no Ki pool, stunning fist, or ACProblem... help
Hardly a problem. You can easily have 14's in all those stats, or better if you want to minmax. A Dwarf Monk could have 15/15/16/10/16/5. Nothing to sneeze. At 1st level he's a lot like a fighter in a chain shirt dual-wielding shortswords, except with better saves. They diverge more after that (monks more defensive generally speaking).
Seriously, why?
They need 4 stats to be of any use to the party.
Dumping STR means no real damage
Dumping DEX means you get hit by everything because you cant wear armor
Dumping CON means you can't take hits at all
Dumping WIS means no Ki pool, stunning fist, or ACProblem... help
In short because they were op in 2nd edition and needed to be scaled back.
In long, pathfinder monks have the same basic design as 3.5 monks which were really not that great, but some people including the people making the books figured the way to fix them was by giving them bigger numbers, when the real problem was that their abilities did not work well together at all and need more synergy. This 3.5 monk design came about because the WotC designers thought that what was valuable in 2nd edition would be automatically valuable in 3.5 (lots of attacks, high damage die, and lots of save or suck with low DCs) and the last 2nd edition monk published (scarlet brotherhood monk) had a lot of these and was really good, too good. So WotC took that monk model and toned it down to prevent it from being overpowered. This failed because all of their prior good abilities were rendered moot due to edition changes (needing to sit still to full attack, far higher hp totals, and saves being a scaling DC system rather than a fixed DC system).
If you play a monk Paizo hates you, sorry.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I can't share the opinion that monks are too bad. Might be connected to the fact that I reduced my GM to tears with my monk character on a regular basis ;-D
"In short because they were op in 2nd edition and needed to be scaled back."
er..monks weren't in 2nd edition. There was a lame "fighting monk" kit in the Complete Priest Handbook which sucked something awful, but, unless you're talkiing about some non-core thing, monks weren't in 2nd ed.
There were monks in 1st ed, but they were pretty suck-tacular as well (though a very cool version of the Monk came out in the Complete Dragon - gold)
I was a greyhawk specific class that introduced such abilities as quivering palm, monks having stunning fist attempts equal to their level, and monks having a higher than average number of attacks. It was also very obviously the inspiration mechanically for the 3.5 monk.
I even specifically mentioned in my first post that they were from the book the Scarlet Brotherhood, and before that they were in dragon magazine.
Seriously, why?
They aren't bad at all. I suspect that many of the people who keep saying this either have never played one or never been in a group with someone else who has, and are making this judgment based on how they look on paper. We had a monk in our group and he was extremely powerful. He easily had the highest constant damage output of anyone in the party, plus he was able to run faster than anyone else and could maneuver around the battlefield with ease.
They need 4 stats to be of any use to the party.Dumping STR means no real damage
Dumping DEX means you get hit by everything because you cant wear armor
Dumping CON means you can't take hits at all
Dumping WIS means no Ki pool, stunning fist, or ACProblem... help
This is based on the mistaken idea that you "need" an 18 in a stat to be "good" at it. You don't. Believe me, monks can do incredibly well with a 14 in Dex, Con and Wis, and a 16+ Str.
What, you think the monk in Baldur's Gate II was invented by Bioware? Nuh-uh.
EDIT: I think they were non-core, but I'm pretty sure they were in there.
Well, actually, they added that class because they heard that 3e would have them as a core class. Same for the sorcerer and barbarian.
But that doesn't mean that there were no monks prior to 3e.
As i said in some other posts, I had previously shared the prevailing view on Monks and agreed witht he reasons why they were Given.
Then i played one, And did not experience any of the problems that people commonly express.
My starting stats were 16 14 14 10 14 10 and with gear by lvl 10 were 18 18 14 10 15 10.
Primary weapon was the Temple sword and i was a Trippling battle field machine Leaping accross the field 90 feet at a tie and being wherever i needed to be wether it was occupying incomming forces or puting the enemy Cleric into a sleeper hold after the party witch dispelled him.
What, you think the monk in Baldur's Gate II was invented by Bioware? Nuh-uh.
EDIT: I think they were non-core, but I'm pretty sure they were in there.
Well, actually, they added that class because they heard that 3e would have them as a core class. Same for the sorcerer and barbarian.
But that doesn't mean that there were no monks prior to 3e.
That game previewed a couple of things for 3e iirc, monks were only one of them.
But nobody said that monks didn't exist before 3e. I specifically referenced them being in 1e. And the Complete Dragon - gold version was for 1e.There may have been a setting specific version for 2e. I don't remember it. But, monks weren't core in 2e and the closest thing to -core- was the lame "fighting monk" kit.
You are right they weren't core, but they did exist and the version that existed for greyhawk specifically was the one that WotC used as a base for the 3.5 monk. It was in the book the Scarlet Brotherhood and before that Dragon Magazine. This monk was overpowered compared to other classes in 2nd edition, and because of fears that the 3.0 monk would be overpowered and paradigm shifts in the core game it became underpowered in 3rd edition.
Edit: All of this being said I do believe with some of the APG and UM options monks are not nearly so crippled anymore and are on par with the fighter.
While I do believe that a -very- effective monk can be built in Pathfinder (and I've done it), I don't believe that it's easy to build. It takes a good deal of time studying and analyzing the rules. Further, for those players who have never moved beyond the "training wheels" version of playing where "roles" are emphasized, learning to play the monk is going to be an exceptional challenge because it doesn't fit into any of the classic roles.
Agreed. Like a real monk it takes much time and dedication, but by min-maxing, being 100% efficient, and making the rules squeal to the point where they nearly spontaneously combust you can make a very effective monk
even moreso now UM* is out
*Unedited Mistakes
I've DMed multiple monks because a player in my group enjoys them. They are rarely weak. They aren't the greatest damage dealers, but they do enough. They are much more difficult to challenge because of their saves and defensive abilities. If built around combat maneuvers, they become an even stronger group member.
I imagine they don't appeal to the power gamer type that likes to do tons of damage or have a massive effect on the combat wtih a single powerful spell. But they are far from weak or underpowered. They do require more thought to play well than most classes. I imagine many players don't have the patience to play a moderate damage class that relies more on combat maneuvers than a big damage dealer.
A lot of the abilities of the monk haven't change since 1E. That's right, 1E, in the Player's Handbook. The values have changed (such as their hit dice), but the abilities themselves are the same. Other classes have changed, however. Rogues picked up evasion, uncanny dodge, and talents; fighters now have bravery, weapons training, armor training; clerics have 9 levels of spells (though the top levels are still thin); wizards have school powers; and so on. The abilities a monk needs to function correspond to his 1E ability score prerequisites. But no other class demands the ability scores of a monk. Any melee character needs Strength and Con, profits from Dex and Wisdom, but can function with less. But the monk has abilities based off of a non-melee stat (Wis), uses a lower hit die than other primary melee classes (d8, not d10 or d12), and has abilities that just don't fit together well (enhancements to movement rate meets flurry of blows) or which don't really power up the class very well (tongue of sun and moon). They've improved quite a bit from 3.0, but they still have a ways to go. For a class in melee, you really want several things: the ability to reliably dish out damage, the ability to mitigate or avoid taking damage, and the ability to take damage when you fail to avoid it. Monks don't excel at the dishing out or taking it, only at avoiding it (in some cases). But combat is determined by the side with the best offense, not the best defense; if the monk can avoid damage all day long but the rest of the party gets beaten up, well, he isn't straining the cleric, but he also isn't avoiding damage to the party by beating the enemy down first either.
I've DMed multiple monks because a player in my group enjoys them. They are rarely weak. They aren't the greatest damage dealers, but they do enough. They are much more difficult to challenge because of their saves and defensive abilities. If built around combat maneuvers, they become an even stronger group member.
I imagine they don't appeal to the power gamer type that likes to do tons of damage or have a massive effect on the combat wtih a single powerful spell. But they are far from weak or underpowered. They do require more thought to play well than most classes. I imagine many players don't have the patience to play a moderate damage class that relies more on combat maneuvers than a big damage dealer.
You and a lot of other people seem to not understand something. People don't say that monks are bad because they are filthy power gamers intent on getting the most plusses. People say the monk is bad because it is literally worse than other options 100% of the time, and at the same time do not bring anything unique to the table. None of their mechanics that are interesting cannot be replicated by something else. The only this that they really have is unarmored AC bonus without items and that's just a number and doesn't actually open up roleplaying opportunities. If I wanted a good non-magical combat manuever specialist I'd take a fight, ranger, or barbarian. If I wanted an unarmed combatant resistant to spells I'd take improved unarmed strike as a paladin. If I wanted to run fast I'd play a barbarian or cavalier with charge based abilities.*
*note this is core only monk that I am talking about.
i still don't agree with all thats said their unarmed damage is awesome when they flurry they have a great movement great saves
the tactics of run up stun then flurry the next round seems like it would work just fine.
they do have alot of situational stuff true i still think still mind sucks but w/e.
heck at 20 they get 8 attacks at 2d10 each? if your str isn't that high just take weapon finesse and 2d10 8 times should carry you. i think the monk just has alot of diffrent approaches available. the stun paralyze etc. alone is nice you can't measure them with just raw damage when they have a good portion of other abilitys that help like stun blind fist etc. as well as the niftyness of:
ok party is scaleing down a mountain a group of orcs shoot at you while your climbing down so mister monk slides down lands towards the middle of them and is ready to go without having to draw weapons or anything.
I think it's basically because the monk is a role play option. Fighting without armor or significant weaponry in melee combat sucks in real life when facing armored foes and giant monsters, so they decided it shouldn't be as good of an option as fighting with magical armor and weaponry in the game. It's there just in case you want the option for the aesthetic, but there's NO WAY you should be as powerful without armor while fighting with your fists as other characters fighting with both of those elements.
Ok, ok, I'm obviously joking. I don't really think that's part of paizo's design philosophy for the monk. It's an OK class, and I think it survives OK. But playing one from level one when other martial characters are in the party is disappointing. Some of the archetypes are nice - zen archer and qinggong monks for instance - but if you're looking for the traditional legendary kung fu master, you'll have to settle for being sub par when compared to other martial characters.
i still don't agree with all thats said their unarmed damage is awesome when they flurry they have a great movement great saves
the tactics of run up stun then flurry the next round seems like it would work just fine.
they do have alot of situational stuff true i still think still mind sucks but w/e.
heck at 20 they get 8 attacks at 2d10 each? if your str isn't that high just take weapon finesse and 2d10 8 times should carry you. i think the monk just has alot of diffrent approaches available. the stun paralyze etc. alone is nice you can't measure them with just raw damage when they have a good portion of other abilitys that help like stun blind fist etc. as well as the niftyness of:
ok party is scaleing down a mountain a group of orcs shoot at you while your climbing down so mister monk slides down lands towards the middle of them and is ready to go without having to draw weapons or anything.
Not to burst your bubble but 2d10 x8 averages at around 80, which is pathetic at level 20 (yes I know there are other bonuses, but the 2d10 is pretty lame on its own.)
You also need to re-read stunning fist, look at the save DC, now look at most monsters fortitude saves, now weep at the 10% chance you have of stunning something.
I have found the best monks are BIG monks, if you can start off large and eventually become huge then your damage skyrockets, the damage chart for a huge monk is literally off the chart (seriously it only goes to large, what would it even be at huge??). I love playing monks personally, but I need to be a large monk for it to compare to everyone else.
What class would you take if you wanted a character with a high Perception (so as to see enemies early), a high Initiative (so as to act before the enemy), a high move (so as to move into range to act), and an effective stun/grapple/whatever to immobilize the enemy - all so that you can tie up the BBEG before anyone else (including the BBEG) gets...
True, if that was useful at all the monk could do it well. Except, everyone's perception score is as high as the highest in the party (he can just tell everyone else) so the cleric makes the fighter have good perception too, bbeg's also have minions, you dont want to ever be 60ft away from your party and tied up in a grapple, that is certain death when you are surrounded with your craptastic AC.
So yeah, if this made any sense to do monks would be great.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Before I declare a class is useless to the party, I ask myself: "What do I want to accomplish with this character?" I have found that often when someone claims that a class is useless it's because they aren't using it for its intended purpose. If you play the monk as a front line fighter, you will find it lacking. If you play the monk as a rogue, you will find it lacking. You need to figure out, just like with any other character, what niche you want your character to fill in the party. Once you do that, see if you can accomplish this with the class in question.
And no class is going to be good at everything, not even all its own class abilities. That is unfortunate, but true. Some campaigns will see variations but I have never seen a class use all of its abilities to the fullest at all times. Not even the spell casters.
So my question to the original poster: what do you want your monk to be able to accomplish? Maybe we can help.
What class would you take if you wanted a character with a high Perception (so as to see enemies early), a high Initiative (so as to act before the enemy), a high move (so as to move into range to act), and an effective stun/grapple/whatever to immobilize the enemy - all so that you can tie up the BBEG before anyone else (including the BBEG) gets...
Easy a barbarian. He has a high perception because you put skill points into it. He has high initiative because you apparently have good enough stat rolls to consider a monk and improved initiative is a good feat. He has high move, even more so if he takes the run feat, but a charging grapple should be more than enough. He has a high CMB because unlike monk he has Full BAB and is working off the same stats, plus rage buffs it even more.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Seriously, why?
They need 4 stats to be of any use to the party.
Dumping STR means no real damage
Dumping DEX means you get hit by everything because you cant wear armor
Dumping CON means you can't take hits at all
Dumping WIS means no Ki pool, stunning fist, or ACProblem... help
First this.
Now on to the main point, shortened since Treantmonk's guide was already posted.
1. Dex isn't that important. Focus on Wisdom and Strength. If you just have a 16 in wisdom you are wearing the equivalent of a chain shirt by 4th level without any other enhancements. Potions of owls wisdom are cheap, and all of this is against touch AC and with no armor checks or movement penalties.
2. You basically get full BAB two weapon fighting for free unlike other two weapon builds you don't need to meet pre-requisites.
3. You have as many feats as a fighter at 1st level and 2nd level and can skip pre-requisites for monk feats. This includes dodge if you are worried about AC.
4. You get free weapons and don't need to spend money on armor, so your money goes to other things.
5. You have all good saves. All of them.
6. Stunning fists save goes up as you level.
When you play a monk, you can do a lot of things, depending on what your party needs. It isn't a tank, but it can. It isn't a rogue, but it has the best chance of surviving the trap with good saves and immunities. It has an attack against fort saves for when you meet casters...
Seriously just read treantmonks guide.
I haven't dug into this, but just took a quick look. I took a random monster from a random CR - the Horned Devil (CR 16) and looked up his Fort save +18. A 16th level Monk would have about a 28 Wisdom (22 base and +6 Headband). That gives him a +22 to save vs. his stunning fist.
The Horned Devil would need to roll a 14 or higher to save or be staggered, blinded, or deafened.The Horned Devil has a +8 to Init. The Monk would have a +13 (+9 from magical items and +4 for Improved Init). The Horned Devil has a +24 to Perception. The Monk has a +28 to his stealth.
So, the Monk is going to have a very good chance of staggering or blinding or deafening the Horned Devil before anybody including the Horned Devil knows that combat has even started, let alone taken their first action.
I'll play this game horned devil has CMD of 44, barbarian has the same initiative because you're assuming good stat rolls, a CMB of (+16 BAB + 12 Str +4 from feats + 2 from charge) so he only needs a 8 or higher to grapple, so he is equal to a monk even in terms of disabling, but wait. the monk you described only actually has a DC of 27 (10+ 8 from levels + 9 from wisdom)meaning the horned devil only needs to roll a 9 meaning unless you have some sort of secret ju-ju magic items that only work for monks (because otherwise the barbarian could match them) the barbarian is better than the monk at his own roll.
Edit: Wait you build Dex, wis monks then my arguments are slightly different? If you're entirely focused on stunning fist, and combat manuevers then maybe you could do well, but you'd still be lying if you didn't say that APG and UM helped level the playing field a lot with the other martial classes.
Your barbarian has high perception because you put skill points into it. My monk has a higher perception because I put skill points into it and Wis is a core attribute.
Your barbarian has a high initiative because you took Improved Initiative. My monk has a higher initiative because I took Improved Initiative and Dex is a core attribute. (I'm assuming that strength and con are your two top attributes whereas Wis and Dex are my two top attributes).
Your barbarian's move is like tree sap compared to my monk's.
Your barbarian has a high CMB, but so does my monk (due to manuever training).
And yet it is still a DC 15 to break down a door. The barbarian still did what you asked, only he can actually pummel the big bad too.
Two things
1.) BBEG don't always have minions
2.) The monk often takes point (due to his high mobility and stealth)- which means that he's going to be able to see things that the cleric wouldn't.
1.) Then he's dead by action economy anyway.
2.) So your going to be 60 ft ahead, spot the guy, run another 60ft and grapple him? You'll be dead before your allies even get there.
My problem with the Monk is a personal one; I can't bring my-self to play a character that has an eight or lower in intelligence and charsima.
Since the only time I get to play Pathfinder is with a Dungeon Master that uses fifteen point buy (and begrudingly at that) it makes it nearly impossible to play a monk that isn't mentally deficient.
Even with higher point buys it's hard to get by without dropping down intelligence or charsima.
Also most Dungeon Masters I've ever known, my-self included, would start to have a problem if every major villian in the game gets put in a headlock and noogied to death. Once every so often is fine, but if every combat devolved into a grapple the villians would start wising up pretty darn quick.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
the drunken monk I'n our currentvgame is being played by a player who is still learning. while it has it's issues he's done well with ki throw and even gotten a chance to throw people off cliffs then later an elf tree fort. well eventually run into stuff he cannot trip ( like the gargantuan spider kat sesion) but anything humanoid is tossed around like a rag doll orvpositioned via ki throw for the rogue to gut.
it's been really effective. but were just lvl 7.
The monk is a pretty wonky class because its class abilities don't work well together.
One of its main selling points, mobility, can't be used in conjunction with its only offensive output capability, flurry of blows, which requires you to be stationary. If they got better standard action attacks they might be better, but as it is they can't even get access to greater vital strike because of their BaB problems.
If you want to play a powerful monk, go for a zen archer. Hot damn!
the drunken monk I'n our currentvgame is being played by a player who is still learning. while it has it's issues he's done well with ki throw and even gotten a chance to throw people off cliffs then later an elf tree fort. well eventually run into stuff he cannot trip ( like the gargantuan spider kat sesion) but anything humanoid is tossed around like a rag doll orvpositioned via ki throw for the rogue to gut.
it's been really effective. but were just lvl 7.
I have to agree here, if I can't be large I go the Ki throw route. Even better when I can do both.
Maybe I'm missing something, but how is the Devil's CMD relevant?
How does the barbarian have the same initiative when he's not going to have the same dex (or are you assuming that the barbarian's two top attributes aren't Str and Con)? I don't think you read the example I presented because I mentioned stunning fist, not grappling. Are you comparing the monk's stunning fist to the barbarian's grapple? Also, I didn't list all the monk's magic gear. In the example I presented, I didn't have the monk grapple the devil because devils typically do have allies. Grappling would be a bad move in that case. Grappling would be bad for both the barbarian and the monk. Fortunately, the monk, seeing the Devil's allies, could dimension door or tumble out of danger at the beginning of the next round.
You do realize your stunning fist only works half the time right? That means you effectively have half your stunning fists for the day, and its a one round stun. Guess what happens to you when that one round is over and your still next to a devil?
I haven't dug into this, but just took a quick look. I took a random monster from a random CR - the Horned Devil (CR 16) and looked up his Fort save +18. A 16th level Monk would have about a 28 Wisdom (22 base and +6 Headband). That gives him a +22 to save vs. his stunning fist.
The Horned Devil would need to roll a 14 or higher to save or be staggered, blinded, or deafened.The Horned Devil has a +8 to Init. The Monk would have a +13 (+6 from attributes, +3 from magical items and +4 for Improved Init). The Horned Devil has a +24 to Perception. The Monk has a +28 to his stealth.
So, the Monk is going to have a very good chance of staggering or blinding or deafening the Horned Devil before anybody including the Horned Devil knows that combat has even started, let alone taken their first action.
I'm a little confused. Stunning Fist save DC is 10 + 1/2 level + Wis mod, right? 10 + 1/2 level (16/2=+8) + Wis mod (28=+9)= 27.
If a Horned Devil has a +18 Fort save, that means he succeeds on 9 or higher.
And this is considering that a 28 Wisdom may be a bit high... A 22 base Wisdom? That's an 18 Wisdom to start, and all level bumps into Wisdom. On top of that, you have an extremely high Dex to pull off that +13 Init. So my main question is, what is your Str and Con if that's the case? With such heavy investment into Wis and Dex, I would think your to hit, damage, and HP will really be suffering for it.
Also, I don't think there is a "very good chance" of this happening, let alone before combat having started and everyone else having taken an action. More like "if the stars properly align I can pull this off."
So with a heavy investment into Wisdom and Init, and a decent investment in Stealth, and IF the Horned Devil isn't flying (making stealth and getting to him difficult), then you wind up needing to:
-Beat his perception with your stealth
-Beat his init with your init
-Actually land an attack on him
-Pray that he doesn't make his save (which he does 60% of the time)
And this is if the Horned Devil is completely alone. If he has allies, you are going to have to beat their perception, and init checks as well. And this is only an "average" encounter. With all these variables factored in, you might only be succeeding 10% of the time if you really specialize in it. Fantastic.
|
|
I've always thought that Monks can be reasonably effective at higher levels, but have a very hard time surviving lower levels (at least that's my experience).
It also really seems to me that Monks have a tough time with lower point-buy games.
@ Lilith's Thrall - I was just wondering what point-buy you were assuming for your sample Monk at 16th level? I noticed that your two top stats are both at 28 (or 22 each without stat boosting items). Were you figuring that he'd received inherent bonuses from tomes/manuals, and if so how much? If he started with a 25 pt. buy and, say, Str 12 [2], Dex 18 [17], Con 12 [2], Wis 18 (16+2) [10], Int 10, [0] and Cha 7 [-4], and split his level up bonuses between Dex and Wis, he'd still need at least a +2 inherent bonus to each stat (110,000gp), plus the 2 stat-enhancing items (72,000gp).
That represents 58% of his WBL just for stat boosts (and doesn't count boosting Str and/or Con). I'm not saying it couldn't be done, but it doesn't leave much room for an Amulet of Mighty Fists, Cloak of Resistance, Ring of Protection, Bracers of Armor, or other items that he might want or need (say a Ring of Freedom of Movement, Monk's Robe, Boots of Speed).
I'd love to see the actual build, just to see if he's got all of his bases covered. Is he relying on other party members to cast Mage Armor or Shield of Faith? Just curious to see the whole thought process.
]You do realize your stunning fist only works half the time right? That means you effectively have half your stunning fists for the day, and its a one round stun. Guess what happens to you when that one round is over and your still next to a devil?How do you figure? We're talking about a 16th level monk here. He can permanently blind a target with his stunning fist or stagger them for 1d6 + 1 rounds. Why do you think this would work for only one round? And why do you think this is only a 50/50 shot?
If it's a 16th level monk, then the ice devil is CR = party level - 3.
Frankly, with that kind of level advantage, the devil should be a joke to any non-terrible PC.
In my experience: the monk isn't unplayably bad, but it's subpar and only really looks decent in the case that you have a GM who really likes the kind of combat in which you get swarmed by lower level mooks vs. one or a few tougher opponents. Throw that level 16 monk up against something that would be a more challenging fight for its level (say, an ancient red dragon, or several mariliths) and it starts looking painful fast.
True, a well-built monk looks a LOT better than a poorly built monk, but take a player who could build a well-built monk and let him play a better class and they'll make that look better than the monk, probably.
I wish it were better, but it really isn't.
True, a well-built monk looks a LOT better than a poorly built monk, but take a player who could build a well-built monk and let him play a better class and they'll make that look better than the monk, probably.
Possibly, but it might not be what they want to play. Which is key here.
Ah. My mistake.
It'd take a lot of GM mercy for a monk to do much to that, honestly.