Just a note: under current rules a monk cannot have an 8d10 vital strike. As they never reach a 16BAB they cannot take greater vital strike. Thus they are limited to 6d10. Additionally, in my mind vital strike is not such a big deal. Yes, in a hit and run attack you can do 6d10 damage. On the other hand a flurry of blows has 3 attacks at +3 bonus to hit (over vital strike attacks) which also equals 6d10 and that is before you take into account the iterative attacks.
Level 20 Example:
Standard attack with Improved Vital Strike has a BAB of 15 for 6d10 damage.
FOB has an attack bonus of 18/18/18(ki point)/13/13/8/8/3 for 2d10 each.
I know which one is my choice.
Regarding the other statements, I believe the monks main flaw is the enhancement bonus issue. I like the suggestion regarding +1 for every 4 levels and those pluses apply as per page 562 of the core rulebook.
- Gauss
Gauss: I specifically stated that they were reduced to Average BAB to PREVENT an 8d10 Vital Strike, with spring attacking disconnected from Vital Strike to prevent a highly mobile character like a monk from utterly abusing enemies with such possible 8d10 vital strikes.
I do appreciate your input, and I agree with the fact that the enhancement issue is a serious one. ALthough, my proposition was something along the lines of weapon training to alleviate average damage/actually hitting a target issues while reducing unarmed strike damage dice to allow for more flexibility within the system. This would also mean that enhancement bonuses could stack, and generally monk would be more accurate, do slightly more damage, and thus be more effective.
Although, lets face it: Monk desperately needs cheaper enhancement bonuses.
Indeed...it keeps coming back to an enhancement bonus, either from an item or inherent in some way.
|
Earlier, DeathQuaer asked why monks can't get Combat Expertise as a bonus feat, since they need it as a prereq to be as good at combat maneuvers as they should be. The reason for that, it bears mentioning, is that they don't need Combat Expertise-- they already have all the feats C.E. is a prereq for on their prereq-exempt bonus feat list. If they want Improved Disarm or whatnot, they can just get it. That said, trading to-hit for AC, on a lightly armored character, might be a nice ability to have even with the monk's lower to-hit. It would be nice if monks had C.E. on their bonus feat list.
I'd also like to point out that while monks are a bit weak in the CRB, the APG did quite a lot for them. Not only are the archetypes all more focused on doing one thing well, and thus less bothered by the core monk's unfocused ability list, but several of the archetypes replaced Stunning Fist with another feat-- a feat that a core monk would have little difficulty meeting the prepreqs for. And since Dwarves get bonuses to two of the abilities monks need most (and a penalty to one of the few that they don't care about) it's not really as hard as you think to roll a decent monk.
If I were working for Paizo, I'd expand the monk's bonus feat list, give them a few more things to spend ki points on, and maybe let them add their Wisdom to their attack and/or damage rolls. But I'm honestly not convinced they're as bad off as the messageboards make them sound.
Play one then. You'll find yourself missing most of your attacks, retreating because of your poor HP, frustrated with your low ability scores, put out because everyone else gets nifty magical items and enhancements but you, and end up being little more than a grapple bot if you're play the CRB Monk. The archetypes aren't bad, well some of them aren't, but some of them are awful and you'll almost never see anyone taking them.
There is a reason so many people take Zen Archer. It's simply the best incarnation of the Monk.
The real reason why Monks should get Combat Expertise, is, without it, they don't qualify for the Greater Feats. They would also be limited to using their Monk Bonus Feats to take the Improved Feats, and they don't come often enough to be practical.
You can take Improved Grapple at 1st or 2nd, then you have to wait till 6th for the others, and you gain another bonus feat every 4 levels beyond that. Several of the bonus feats are very subpar, and it was rather disappointing that Paizo didn't expand their bonus feat list with the release of the APG, UM, or UC. There are a lot of good feats for the Monk to use in those books, and yet, nothing was added to their bonus feat list. Every other class with bonus feats got things added, just not the Monk.
I'm going to keep saying it, I personally think the people in charge at Paizo do not like the Monk and intentionally limit them in every way they can.
It's really rather sad that, if limited to CRB only, all of the other classes mostly remain good choices, but the Monk really doesn't. The Monk is the one class that needs the other 3 books to really contribute to the party as much as the others, and that's mostly by taking an archetype that changes a lot of the functions of the base class. When the only way to be effective is to change most of the classes abilities, it should be apparent that something is wrong with the class itself.
Will Paizo take our suggestions to heart and give the Monk some love? Unlikely, they don't want to admit something is wrong in the first place. They almost seem terrified of giving the Monk any goodies and do everything they can to insure that there is no possible way to take any amount of spotlight from the full BAB classes.
Every time the Monk has something good for them, it gets changed, and power creep is always to blame. Fact is, they have spent so much time insuring the Monk has no chance of Power Creep, that the other classes have leaped forward to the point that what once would be Power Creep, is now the standard. But of course, since the Monk never got that Power Creep, and was behind the other classes in the first place, he's so far behind that there is almost no chance of catching up.
There's a part of me that wants to just ban all Monks from playing in any game I run so people don't get disappointed trying to run one. I've actually had a player quit playing Pathfinder because he was so disappointed in the uselessness of his Monk.
As for not being as bad as the messageboards make them out to be, you do realize that every week, there's between 3 and 5 threads created complaining about the monk, proposing 'fixes' for the class, or trying to sum up what's wrong with it so that it can be fixed? I haven't been posting here very long, but in the time I have been here, Monk threads are the ones that are the most commonly created that I've seen.
You never see threads saying the Fighter is underwhelming, or the Paladin is useless, or the Wizard sucks, or the Alchemist blows. No, what you see is Monk, Monk, Monk, Monk, and occasionally, Rogue.
Making the monk work now
In our home group Pathfinder game we are using the core rules and our original interpretations of them. My view is that the various later rulings and clarifications have further broken the monk instead fixing them.
We have allowed monks to use their unarmed strike damage with brass knuckles, as in the original text. Adamantine or Silver knuckles help with by passing damage reduction, and at low-levels a masterwork set of brass knuckles gives a nice +1 to attack.
Our GM has ruled that like any other weapon a monk’s unarmed strike can be enchanted. Fluff-wise for my monk character, the cost and time of the enchantment process is associated with undergoing a ritual at a monastery. However, as my GM suggested, this is could also be the cost of the arcane ingredients to have the party wizard enchant the monk with a series of arcane tattoos on the monk’s spine. Masterwork cost still has to be paid to keep pricing fair.
Flurry of blows can be performed with no weapons in the monk’s hands, one monk weapon, or two monk weapons, and always results in the same number of attacks.
I think these (non-official & incorrect) interpretation of the rules help to make the monk viable now.
My dexterity based monk still does a lot less damage, has a lot lower AC, and less hit points then the two weapon fighter. But has better reflex and will saves. However, at least with the brass knuckles he can hurt foes and try to help combat by getting the party rogues into flanking.
A role for the monk in the future
I think my biggest disappointment with the monk in pathfinder is the lack of combat mobility; that is to enact a flurry-of-blows the monk has to stay still. Their ability to hit-move-and-hit-again is lacking. Martial arts movies are full of heroes (aka Jackie Chan) who are constantly in motion during a fight; when faced with a room full of bag guys Jackie Chan will, punch one opponent, tumble through his legs, trip the next bad guy and leap over him, and kick the third while in the air, then finally land at the opposite side of the room. I think this ability to hit-move-hit-move should be the flavour of the vanilla monk in pathfinder. [i]The monk’s role should be a mobile striker, able to engage multiple opponents[\i].
My suggestion on how to do this would be to allow a limited number of 5 foot movements/steps during the monk’s full-attack action. This ability to move during a full-attack action would be something unique to the monk class (feats like step-up and strike provide this outside of the full-attack action).
Merge flurry of blows with two-weapon-fighting as the designers appear to want to do and have the monk gain two-weapon-fighting feat and later improved-two-weapon-fighting etc. During the monk’s full-attack action, grant the monk a number of 5-foot movements equal to their number of bonus attacks from two weapon fighting; allowing them hit-move-hit-move-hit-again again during the full-attack action. At higher levels allow the monk to replace the five-foot movements with five-foot steps (this replacement should be the monk’s choice). Total movement still has to be less than the monk’s speed. The class-feats for granting this ability to hit-move-hit ability should be progressive as monk levels increase to stop two-weapon-fighters from taking a one or two level dip into monk for this ability. This extra movement during a full-attack action should stack with the ability to take a five foot step.
Anyone want to have a go at designing this idea into a monk class?
Gauss: I specifically stated that they were reduced to Average BAB to PREVENT an 8d10 Vital Strike, with spring attacking disconnected from Vital Strike to prevent a highly mobile character like a monk from utterly abusing enemies with such possible 8d10 vital strikes.
Ahhh sorry, I missed a key word that changed the meaning of the sentance. - Gauss
A role for the monk in the future
I think my biggest disappointment with the monk in pathfinder is the lack of combat mobility; that is to enact a flurry-of-blows the monk has to stay still. Their ability to hit-move-and-hit-again is lacking. Martial arts movies are full of heroes (aka Jackie Chan) who are constantly in motion during a fight; when faced with a room full of bag guys Jackie Chan will, punch one opponent, tumble through his legs, trip the next bad guy and leap over him, and kick the third while in the air, then finally land at the opposite side of the room. I think this ability to hit-move-hit-move should be the flavour of the vanilla monk in pathfinder. [i]The monk’s role should be a mobile striker, able to engage multiple opponents[\i].
My suggestion on how to do this would be to allow a limited number of 5 foot movements/steps during the monk’s full-attack action. This ability to move during a full-attack action would be something unique to the monk class (feats like step-up and strike provide this outside of the full-attack action).
Merge flurry of blows with two-weapon-fighting as the designers appear to want to do and have the monk gain two-weapon-fighting feat and later improved-two-weapon-fighting etc. During the monk’s full-attack action, grant the monk a number of 5-foot movements equal to their number of bonus attacks from two weapon fighting; allowing them hit-move-hit-move-hit-again again during the full-attack action. At higher levels allow the monk to replace the five-foot movements with five-foot steps (this replacement should be the monk’s choice). Total movement still has to be less than the monk’s speed. The class-feats for granting this ability to hit-move-hit ability should be progressive as monk levels increase to stop two-weapon-fighters from taking a one or two level dip into monk for this ability. This extra movement during a full-attack action should stack with the ability to take a five foot step.
Anyone want to have a go at designing this idea into a monk class?
I think this is what you're looking for:
Dance of Fury (Su)
At 12th level, a dervish dancer can attack more than once as he moves while performing a battle dance. He can combine a full-attack action with a single move, taking the attacks at any point during his movement, but must move at least 5 feet between each attack. This movement provokes attacks of opportunity as normal.
This ability replaces soothing performance.
I think if the Monk had the ability similar to this, and a fix for his enhancement abilities, people would be a lot more satisfied with the Monk as a fighting class.
It's really rather sad that, if limited to CRB only, all of the other classes mostly remain good choices, but the Monk really doesn't. The Monk is the one class that needs the other 3 books to really contribute to the party as much as the others, and that's mostly by taking an archetype that changes a lot of the functions of the base class. When the only way to be effective is to change most of the classes abilities, it should be apparent that something is wrong with the class itself.
Actually, Tels, you can make a decent character out of a CRB monk - it just takes a hell of a lot of system mastery and gaming skill to do it. I agree, though, it's a pain in the backside that you need to pull out all the stops and limit all your options just to be viable, let alone good, and ultimately whatever you focus on offensively, the fighter can do it better if he chooses.
Now, I can understand the caution of the Paizo staff, because the monk is very powerful defensively. What they don't want to do is give the monk massive offensive power and then find that they have no way of stopping them. I don't think this is too major a problem, myself: the monk is a MAD, 3/4 BAB 8DH class which cannot wear armour - they are always going to have AC and hit points less than the fighter, so physical attacks will always be effective against them.
Some of the style feats are nice, and clearly designed for the monk, so why doesn't the monk get them as bonus feats? Because they are chain feats, and the monk can get the feat without the chain otherwise. A pain, but true.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The real reason why Monks should get Combat Expertise, is, without it, they don't qualify for the Greater Feats. They would also be limited to using their Monk Bonus Feats to take the Improved Feats, and they don't come often enough to be practical.
This is the issue here, SilentSaturn. You can get Improved Disarm as a bonus feat, yes, but now go read the description of Greater Disarm. You will note one of the prerequisites is Combat Expertise (and Int 13). The monk cannot take Greater Disarm unless he has Combat Expertise, even though he can get Improved Disarm for free. If the monk had Greater Disarm as a bonus feat, it wouldn't matter, but he does not.
I just want to say something to the broader conversation as well:
I do not give a flying monkey's butt that the monk is not as good at fighting as the fighter. I don't in fact think that anyone should be as good at fighting as the fighter because that's what fighters do. I do not care that the monk should lose at the DPR Olympics. Especially because there are in fact a crapton of things a monk can do that the fighter can only dream of (skills, movement tricks, immunities and resistances, etc.).
BUT the monk should have unique combat tricks (i.e., unavailable to the fighter) that are easy for new players to understand how they work, AND work well in a consistent manner. A monk player should not be saying "hey, that fighter does more damage than me," and worrying about that, BUT, a monk player SHOULD be saying, "I feel like I can do ENOUGH damage and hit well ENOUGH within my character concept" and moreover "wasn't it awesome when I flurried/stunning fisted/combat maneuvered and did that awesome thing?"---which I don't think a lot of monk players are saying right now.
Agreed, DeathQuaker. The current issue is the monk has three options, and all of them are mediocre at best and bad at worst:
Damage: Unarmed strike has decent damage, but poor enhancement options, meaning the damage output is always low. Monk weapons have better enhancement options, but are light and have low threat ranges, so damage output is low. So the monk cannot be relied on to do serious damage.
Maneuvers: the monk gets good CMB and CMD ratings, and some free maneuver feats, so this option is OK. However he needs Combat Expertise to get the better maneuver feats, and he's MAD enough as it is. So maneuvers are never better than OK.
Special Abilities: Stunning fist and other abilities are tied to unarmed strike, so just hitting is hard enough, unless you have a ki-focus weapon. Then the saves are Fortitude-based so against tough foes they are all but useless. That makes these a poor option.
So what, exactly, is the monk to do? None of these options are good.
Enhancement bonus to hit would make unarmed strikes effective, help CMB, and let stunning fist at least make contact. Other than that, some kind of enhancement on any of the three areas would help, be it damage, maneuvers (Combat Expertise as a bonus feat or a free feat?), or special abilities.
Maneuvers are not the monk's main thing. Like Dabbler and Deathquaker said, monks can get the Improved XX feats as bonuses, but none of the Greater XX feats are on their bonus list. That means that have to meet all of the prequisities, and with a monk's MAD you often can't afford that Int 13 for Combat Expertise to qualify. Power Attack is another feat tax for the Greater XX feats, and while some monks swear by (for raising damage), the penalty to hit just makes things worse.
Yes, fighters and monks have the same effective BAB when using combat maneuvers; but then the monk gets a -2 because of flurry when using those maneuvers on a full-attack. Both can add weapon enhancements to the CMB rolls (if the weapon can be used to perform the maneuver), but that brings us back to the problems of enhancing a monk's unarmed strikes.
Weapon Focus applies (sometimes, the text seems to think that you need a seperate weapon focus for grapple, for example), but the fighter also gets Greater Weapon Focus. And the fighters Weapon Training applies, not to mention his gloves of dueling (Have you ever seen a fighter without them since they were introduced? I haven't.).
In terms of Combat Maneuver Defense, monks are indeed king. But for the Combat Maneuver Bonus, to perform combat maneuvers, the monk comes up short of the fighter yet again.
Master Arminas
I have noticed many people state that monks have a poor AC compared to a fighter. I do not believe this is true.
The below build is between a Monk and TWF. While many things can be better optimized I decided they should have roughly equal types of equipment for this purpose. The monk winds up with more gold remaining as the levels progress and thus could do more with it than I have shown. Additionally the monk could have barkskin (Qinggong monk) and that would save money for expenditures elsewhere.
With that said, a Fighter that has a shield WILL beat the monk on AC (of course) but I feel a TWF is the closest comparison to a monk.
I only go to level 15 as it is my experience that most characters are retired by/around 15.
Finally, yes the Fighter has a better attack bonus than the monk. I am not trying to address or deal with this right now. I am just showing that the monk CAN have a decent AC compared to a fighter with gp to spare.
Assuming a 20point buy:
Fighter: Str16+2, Dex14, Con14, Int12, Wis12, Cha7
Monk: Str14, Dex14+2, Con14, Int9, Wis16, Cha7
1st level (AC) equipment:
Fighter (150gp): Weaponx2, Scale Mail = AC 17
Monk (35gp): Weapon = AC 16 (20 with mage armor)
5th level equipment (10,500gp):
Fighter: Strength Increase +1 (level), +1 weapon x2, +1 Plate Mail, +1 Ring of Deflection, +1 Cloak of Resistance, 250 gp remaining = AC23
Monk: Dex Increase +1(level), +1 weapon, +1 ring of deflection, +1 amulet of barkskin, Headband of +2 Dexterity, 200gp remaining = AC20 (24 with Mage Armor)
10th level equipment (62,000gp):
Fighter: Strength increase +2 (level), +2 Weapon x2, +3 Plate Mail, +2 Ring of Deflection, +2 Amulet of Barkskin, +2 Cloak of Resistance, Belt of +2 Strength and +2 Dexterity, 4750gp rem = AC29
Monk: Dex increase +2 (level), +2 Weapon, +2 Ring of Deflection, +2 Amulet of Barkskin, +2 Cloak of Resistance, Belt of +2 Strength and +2 Dexterity, Headband of +2 Wisdom, Monks Robe, Dusty Rose Ioun Stone, 7700gp rem = AC27 (31 with mage armor)
15th level equipment (240,000gp):
Fighter: Strength increase +3 (level), +4 Weapon x2, +5 Plate Mail, Ring of Deflection+4, Amulet of Barkskin+4, Cloak of Resistance+4, Belt of Strength+4 and Dexterity+4, Dusty Rose Ioun Stone, 23750gp rem = AC37
Monk: Dexterity increase +3 (level) +4 Weapon, Ring of Deflection+4, Amulet of Barkskin+4, Cloak of Resistance+4, Belt of Strength+4 and Dexterity+4, Headband of Wisdom+4, Monks Robe, Dusty Rose Ioun Stone, 49,700gp rem = 35AC (39 with Mage Armor)
- Gauss
That's not a good comparison. The monk could and should have Bracers of Armour (which don't stack with a potion of mage armour), but at the same time is unlikely to get an amulet of ntural armour if he goes for the AoMF.
Meanwhile the fighter could reduce their Int to get better dex. In fact, they have to have better dex in order to qualify for TWF in the first place. Plus, you haven't factored in Two Weapon Defence or Armour Training (allows better dex to work with armour).
Form my own work a monk can generally get within a few points of the fighter's AC, but usually at the expense of strength and offensive power. They are down on the fighter's AC by a few points, or by a lot of points if they don't focus defensively.
Yes, I did factor in Armor training. If you check the math of the AC bonuses I added in the full dexterity at each step. Yes, the fighter can have 1 point higher dex but at level 15 he is already maxing out his dex bonus without going for mithril full plate (which costs another 9,000gp).
Regarding Dex 14 and TWF...you are right I oopsed there. But easily altered. Drop the Int to 10 and put those two points into Dex to bump it to 15. And yes, you could bump it to 16 by dropping the wisdom and 1 more point of wisdom or int. This would save some gold by decreasing the requirement of dex items. In the end itll save 6000 at level 10 (up fighter AC by 1 for an ioun stone). Itll save 18,000 at level 15 (up fighter excess gold by same amount whichll put him closer to monk excess gold).
No I did not factor in Two Weapon Defense because if I did that Id have to factor in feats and abilities that actually put the monk at a much better AC than the fighter. Example: As an experiment I have built a monk that I combined the archtypes monk of the sacred mountain (+1 natural armor, free toughness, and a shield bonus when stationary) and qinggong monk (barkskin in place of wholeness of body) with the crane feat tree. His AC is rediculous and with blocking 1 hit per round he can take quite alot. Additionally it opens him up to the improved natural armor feat from the bestiary (although that is a waste of a feat imo).
I believe I mentioned that I was not trying to address the attack bonus difference. However, why even bother with the AoMF when I can have aomeone cast Greater Magic Weapon on me? While yes, it would lag 1 point behind the weapon bonus it still sufficient for things that do not need cold iron, silver, adamantine, or alignment. Alternately, I can take the money from the weapon, amulet of natural armor (since he has barkskin) 15,700gp of the extra gold to buy a +4 Amulet of Mighty Fists.
Regarding the Bracers of AC I believe I left enough money to account for that at level 15 if desired. However, many other monk builds do not use it until around that level anyway since relying on mage armor is significantly cheaper. And anyhow, if I did use bracers of AC it would put him even higher than the fighter.
The point was not to show that a monk is superior, just that they can match the TWF in AC while still having more resources left over.
Dabbler, you made the statement that a monk can get to within a few points of a fighter if only focusing on defense. I submit that that premise is based on a fighter using a shield and not a two-weapon fighter which is closer to the monk. Additionally, if the fighter is using defensive feats wouldnt the monk also use defensive feats/abilities? The monk has just as many if not more feats and abilities to choose from in that arena.
A fighter will always hit more than a monk, but the point here is that many people complain that the fighter hits more AND has a higher AC a point which I think Ive shown is not necessarily true.
- Gauss
P.S. I just realized I made one other error, the Wisdom should be 14 and the Dex should be 16+2 (to put the accuracy on par with the fighter when using weapon finesse, this way the monk is only behind the fighter's accuracy due to magic weapon disparities, Weapon Training, and Greater Weapon Focus.
Gauss, what fighter actually uses two-weapon fighting? They don't, unless they are a sword-and-board TWF'er using shield bash. The investment in high Dex is simply too great for a character (straight fighter) who relies on Strength.
Rangers are far more common in the TWF role, simply because they can ignore the prerequisites on Improved (Dex 17) and Greater (Dex 19) Two-Weapon Fighting feats.
No, sir; the most common types of fighter-class characters out there are often well above the monk in terms of AC. Or have you fogotten the Animated shield? Fights usually don't last more than the four rounds before the shield falls down and quits adding its AC bonus.
Master Arminas
Stack in +1 for TWD and +2 for a shield bonus, and the fighter is well ahead. As for relying on mage armour, I never met a monk that could cast it without multi-classing. Sure, you can get potions, but you have to drink them ahead of time and that is not always possible.
A monk can approach the fighter's AC. In terms of Touch AC, he can surpass it easily. But in general AC the fighter almost always wins.
|
|
Stack in +1 for TWD and +2 for a shield bonus, and the fighter is well ahead. As for relying on mage armour, I never met a monk that could cast it without multi-classing. Sure, you can get potions, but you have to drink them ahead of time and that is not always possible.
A monk can approach the fighter's AC. In terms of Touch AC, he can surpass it easily. But in general AC the fighter almost always wins.
I think that's the real issue here-- touch AC. Most spells that care about AC care about Touch AC, and that means the monk is better suited to defend against enemy spellcasters than the fighter, while the fighter is better off against enemies with weapons. If the campaign includes a decent number of each, then the fighter and monk should each get a sense of where their strengths and weaknesses lie.
Yet a melee class is always going to have trouble fighting a caster - they can fly, turn invisible, surround themselves with protections that hurt anyone that gets close with no save, and similar. The monk is no more able to damage a caster than the fighter is, they are just less likely to succumb to one - unless he summons melee-bashing monsters...
If you are going to count those feats for the fighter lets count these for the monk: +1 for natural armor and +2 for shield when stationary (MotSM). +4 for fighting defensively (at only a -1 to hit penalty) and 1 attack per round blocked outright (AC infinite for 1 attack) both Crane style feat tree.
Ultimately we can play the game of min-maxing. I was trying to show in a simple way that a TWF build and a monk are similar in AC without going that route.
I acknowledged in my original post that a Sword and Board fighter will win the AC battle. However, that statement seems to have been ignored outright. Rather than judging the merits of my comparison a comparison I was not trying to make was being judged. IF there are never any TWF fighter builds then my statements are meaningless and ignored.
- Gauss
If you are going to count those feats for the fighter lets count these for the monk: +1 for natural armor and +2 for shield when stationary (MotSM). +4 for fighting defensively (at only a -1 to hit penalty) and 1 attack per round blocked outright (AC infinite for 1 attack) both Crane style feat tree.
Ultimately we can play the game of min-maxing. I was trying to show in a simple way that a TWF build and a monk are similar in AC without going that route.
I acknowledged in my original post that a Sword and Board fighter will win the AC battle. However, that statement seems to have been ignored outright. Rather than judging the merits of my comparison a comparison I was not trying to make was being judged. IF there are never any TWF fighter builds then my statements are meaningless and ignored.
- Gauss
Gauss, I don't know if there aren't ANY, but I have never personally seen one. TWF'ers are always built around Rangers or Rogues, in my experience. The first for the free feats (prerequisite free feats) and the second for sneak attack. Ninjas come in a close third.
I see far more archer fighters, two-hand weapon fighters, and (very rarely) sword-and-board fighters. The S&B types usually take TWF, but don't have the DEX to take ITWF and GTWF.
The thing is, even TWF'ers and two-hand weapon masters can quite easily get that +7 bonus from an animated shield (+2 shield, +5 enhancement).
You can't judge a build without the feats. They make tons of difference.
Master Arminas
If you are going to count those feats for the fighter lets count these for the monk: +1 for natural armor and +2 for shield when stationary (MotSM). +4 for fighting defensively (at only a -1 to hit penalty) and 1 attack per round blocked outright (AC infinite for 1 attack) both Crane style feat tree.
Ultimately we can play the game of min-maxing. I was trying to show in a simple way that a TWF build and a monk are similar in AC without going that route.
I acknowledged in my original post that a Sword and Board fighter will win the AC battle. However, that statement seems to have been ignored outright. Rather than judging the merits of my comparison a comparison I was not trying to make was being judged. IF there are never any TWF fighter builds then my statements are meaningless and ignored.
- Gauss
To cut in, I think that they were merely pointing out that Monk has a narrower role from which there is very little variation, whereas other methods of building fighter have much greater advantages in the areas that they pointed out.
I apologize Gauss. I think everyone needs to relax a little. Nobody wants to offend anyone at this point. I think you've got a good perspective here.
If you are going to count those feats for the fighter lets count these for the monk: +1 for natural armor and +2 for shield when stationary (MotSM). +4 for fighting defensively (at only a -1 to hit penalty) and 1 attack per round blocked outright (AC infinite for 1 attack) both Crane style feat tree.
Actually there is no feat the monk can take the fighter cannot also take, unless it specifically asks for monk levels or monk class features.
Ultimately we can play the game of min-maxing. I was trying to show in a simple way that a TWF build and a monk are similar in AC without going that route.
It doesn't matter how you do it, the fighter wins on equal cash. Include feats, and he just wins more - and the fighter has feats to burn and feats the monk cannot access - like Two Weapon Defence, or the fact he can get more mileage out of Combat Expertise. He also has as much access to temporary buffs as the monk, and is more likely to make use of things like defending weapons.
I acknowledged in my original post that a Sword and Board fighter will win the AC battle. However, that statement seems to have been ignored outright. Rather than judging the merits of my comparison a comparison I was not trying to make was being judged. IF there are never any TWF fighter builds then my statements are meaningless and ignored.
No, we haven't ignored them - we have pointed out that they are flawed, because the fighter has more options, and that the fighter is still winning the AC battle - even with a TWF build, the monk loses in your own comparison. Only by adding temporary buffs in your comparison can the monk come out on top. However, the fighter could take them too.
Don't get me wrong, the monk ends up with a respectable AC, enough to front-line for a short period, more than enough to match a ranger or barbarian. Problem is this is not backed up with anything, like offensive ability or hit points.
My 13th level party (I'm DMing) has a fighter with +30 to hit and a paladin with +24. AC36 would be tough, but not impossible for the party to deal with.
The spells are not the problem, truly. If you want a monk/sorcerer to buff up it's certainly worthwhile at low level, but at higher level your bracers replace the mage armour and the shield is too short a duration to be really useful all the time, and it's easy to dispel.
Lets take another tack at this. What is a monk? A monk is a TWF (ie FoB) class that when compared to any non TWF class will certainly has an inferior AC. This is why I compared it to a TWF fighter. Alternately, I couldve compared it to a TWF Ranger or a TWF Rogue. Perhaps I should have done so from the outset but that wasnt the topic.
I believe that for what it does (that being TWF) it is a fine class (other than the problem with magic weapon bonuses) with a fine AC when compared to other TWF classes. Anyhow, this is my opinion.
- Gauss
I get what you mean Gauss. Although, lets keep in mind that your average TWF Fighter has around Monk AC, technically requires less stats, has more feats to flesh it out, probably does more damage, and has much, much higher attack bonus.
Really, that's what's killing our Monk in this comparison. The Monk cannot hit targets anything close to what fighter can. Mostly because if they could, it'd be a 2d10 beatdown extravaganza across 11 potential attacks.
This is part of why I say Weapon Training style bonus instead of increased unarmed damage dice. Less potential damage, more overall damage, and dear god some helpful accuracy.
ReconstructorFleet: I agree, the Fighter (by level 15) does require less stats, has 3 more feats, does 18 more points of bonus damage from Power Attack (+8) + Weapon Training3 (+3), Higher strength (+3), Weapon Specialization (+4). The Monks 2d10 only mitigates this by 6-7 points on average.
Attack bonus isnt quite such a problem since the fighter dumped -4 into PA leaving a difference of +0 between the two (note: that assumes Fighter Str = Monk Dex and the monk did buy AoMF)
Attack calculation (differences only): +3 Weapon Training, +1 Gr. Weapon Focus, -4 PA = 0. I dont think I missed any bonuses/penalties the Fighter gets over the monk.
I agree that a Weapon Training style bonus would be helpful. Heck, some fighter feats that applied only to monk weapons (including unarmed strike) would be nice.
- Gauss
Lets take another tack at this. What is a monk? A monk is a TWF (ie FoB) class that when compared to any non TWF class will certainly has an inferior AC. This is why I compared it to a TWF fighter. Alternately, I couldve compared it to a TWF Ranger or a TWF Rogue. Perhaps I should have done so from the outset but that wasnt the topic.
Half the reason we are having these discussions is because in many ways the monk is NOT a TWF class, although I appreciate that this is the best comparison to draw in a few cases. Still there are many things that a TWF fighter or ranger can do that the monk cannot in both attack and defence - Two-Weapon Defence and Two Weapon Rend spring to mind at once, for example.
I believe that for what it does (that being TWF) it is a fine class (other than the problem with magic weapon bonuses) with a fine AC when compared to other TWF classes. Anyhow, this is my opinion.
The monk can match, maybe beat the ranger in AC, yes. The fighter ... less so. The fighter has a wider range of feats to choose from that are better suited to what he wants to do, whatever that is. The monk gets a much narrower range that can be good, but can be a dead-end.
To say though that the fighter's attack bonus is not so much of a problem because he could be power-attacking is not really a fair comparison - the fighter has the choice of using PA or not, and if he uses it he gets more damage out of the deal (and he is already beating the monk for damage). The monk's attack bonus is just bad, and if the monk PA's, it gets worse.
The monk's problem is that combined with less hit points and at best an equivelant AC, they cannot actually attack as effectively as the TWFing fighter or ranger. You are quite right in that the monk needs some kind of offensive enhancement to even come close to what the other combat classes are doing.
I agree, the fighter has a choice to use it or not. I shouldve stated that (thought it was implied). If I had stated it the other way though Im sure someone wouldve flipped it around and pointed out the damage coulve been bumped up using PA. Sometimes it is hard to cover EVERY base without the post becoming rediculously long. - Gauss
Ain't it the truth? I've felt that way with half the posts I've made so far. :D
Oh yes! You should mention what you are missing out, even if you do not go into it in detail.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, to summarize everyone's thoughts so far.
-Monk's inconsistent and jumbled role makes performing any one task extremely difficult.
-Some kind of scaling bonus to hit. Really, any kind of adjustment to balance the use of weapons and unarmed strike, and make a monk using something other than unarmed strike effective. Personally, I advice reducing unarmed strike damage, and giving a flat, increasing bonus to attack and damage across 20 levels with unarmed strike and weapons. And maybe a way to make Unarmed Strike a unique weapon in and of itself so that it maintains its place as a unique and deadly fighting option.
Additional Thought: Wouldn't it be interesting to give Unarmed Strike specific weapon properties as it levels? Reach, Bracing, Deadly, Disarming...there are plenty of real world styles that effectively give an "unarmed Strike" these properties. That would be interesting to work with in terms of game mechanics.
-Some suggest a much larger scaling bonus to damage. If Monk is meant to be a damage dealer in a pinch to make up for it's flimsy nature, I think that's an interesting idea. I like it. :D
-Some way to use Flurry of Blows after having moved, or at least to be able to make use of your supposed attack speed via multiple attacks after having cleared a decent distance. Your average Monk tends to be extremely hampered in what it can actually do after it's moved, especially if Stunning Fist doesn't pan out. Increase the distance a monk can move before making a Full Attack Action/increase the size of a monk's 5 foot step free action?
-NO MORE FEATS. There are a billion "fix feats" out there for monk, and about half of them are either too weak to do the job, too expensive to be worthwhile, or tax any decent build beyond its limit!
While we're discussing all of this, we should consider the long held belief that the Monk is Anti-spellcaster. Do people find Monk effective in this role?
+1 to that RF
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, to summarize everyone's thoughts so far.
-Monk's inconsistent and jumbled role makes performing any one task extremely difficult.
Agreed.
-Some kind of scaling bonus to hit. Really, any kind of adjustment to balance the use of weapons and unarmed strike, and make a monk using something other than unarmed strike effective. Personally, I advice reducing unarmed strike damage, and giving a flat, increasing bonus to attack and damage across 20 levels with unarmed strike and weapons. And maybe a way to make Unarmed Strike a unique weapon in and of itself so that it maintains its place as a unique and deadly fighting option.
Monks definitely need a way to get an enhancement bonus to hit without relying on gear. I don't mind that they have another option in getting various buffs from party members, but they really need something that they can do on their own, since I think what most people want out of the monk is an unarmed combatant who despite being unarmed can handle major, fantastical foes.
I like the idea of lowering the damage and boosting bonuses, although I would not expect to see it in this edition, though perhaps as an archetype, maybe. In the next edition, whenever that is, absolutely.
Additional Thought: Wouldn't it be interesting to give Unarmed Strike specific weapon properties as it levels? Reach, Bracing, Deadly, Disarming...there are plenty of real world styles that effectively give an "unarmed Strike" these properties. That would be interesting to work with in terms of game mechanics.
I can see the monk getting specific bonuses to combat maneuvers (beyond the BAB boost), but I am not sure about the others. Generally speaking finding ways to make the monk's unarmed strike more unique is a good idea though.
-Some suggest a much larger scaling bonus to damage. If Monk is meant to be a damage dealer in a pinch to make up for it's flimsy nature, I think that's an interesting idea. I like it. :D
I prefer the first suggestion of a standard scale. I think a larger bonus could go overboard easily.
-Some way to use Flurry of Blows after having moved, or at least to be able to make use of your supposed attack speed via multiple attacks after having cleared a decent distance. Your average Monk tends to be extremely hampered in what it can actually do after it's moved, especially if Stunning Fist doesn't pan out. Increase the distance a monk can move before making a Full Attack Action/increase the size of a monk's 5 foot step free action?
These days I'm almost thinking flurry of blows should just be scrapped (in the hypothetical future). It's too problematic. But this may well be me feeling jaded. But also... like, I was trying to explain flurry of blows to a new-ish monk/Pathfinder player just a few days ago. Not even going into the recent "clarification" fiasco! And she was very frustrated with the -- this is your BAB when you do this and this is your BAB when you do that... we got it worked out and she understood it, but it shouldn't have been the issue it was.
I'd rather have something very simple like being able to spend a certain amount of ki points to get an extra attack. Could be more points spent to get the extra attack as part of a standard attack, or the attack could be at a penalty if its part of a standard attack.
-NO MORE FEATS. There are a billion "fix feats" out there for monk, and about half of them are either too weak to do the job, too expensive to be worthwhile, or tax any decent build beyond its limit!
Strongly disagree (so that is not "everyone's thoughts so far"). In particular, I think Dabbler's proposed feats for giving the monk enhancements to attack is probably the easiest and most likely way the monk is going to get that kind of thing in this edition.
And I don't see the fact that some published feats are poorly written/playtested as a reason not to try again and do better next time.
Absolutely look at various other options for homebrew rebuilds and future edition speculation. But I don't think feats should be disregarded as a possibility. One important thing is just to make sure the new feats are monk bonus feats.
While we're discussing all of this, we should consider the long held belief that the Monk is Anti-spellcaster. Do people find Monk effective in this role?
I haven't had the opportunity to often see this in play. My speculation is this:
If the monk wins initiative (isn't that always the stipulation for most classes?), the monk has a chance to get up to a spellcaster and stunning fist/scorpion strike-treeing/grappling the spellcaster before the spellcaster can do much about it. The monk is probably more effective at this at lower levels, when you can't presume the spellcaster will teleport or fly. Scorpion Strike (which can be taken at first level) can be underestimated here because limiting movement is a great way of keeping the caster from 5 foot stepping or withdrawing.
One thing that would help the monk at higher levels is if abundant step did not have the same limitation dimension door did--a monk should be able to use abundant step as a move action and be able to attack afterwards.
Part of what makes a monk good vs spellcasters is less what the monk can do to them and more that the spellcaster cannot do to the monk -- the monk has exceptional saves and a lot of good bonuses and immunities (and eventually SR, although it's questionable as to whether that's actually high enough for the level at which the monk gets it). With a high Wisdom and good saves, the monk in particular can avoid a lot of SOS enchantment spells and the like, and with Evasion, can be largely unharmed by a lot of raw damage spells. A lot of good battle control spells also can be ignored by the monk relatively easily -- the monk is acrobatic enough to deal with grease, can get a good enough CMD or Escape Artist check to avoid black tentacles, etc. So my envisioning of the monk versus a spellcaster is in part that even if the spellcaster can avoid the monk to a degree, the spellcaster also has trouble harming the monk directly (summons and the like notwithstanding). But the monk could actually do with more offensively vs the spellcaster, which largely has to do with the mobility issue (monks are ostensibly mobile but really not).
Strongly disagree (so that is not "everyone's thoughts so far"). In particular, I think Dabbler's proposed feats for giving the monk enhancements to attack is probably the easiest and most likely way the monk is going to get that kind of thing in this edition.
You will give me a swollen ego, DeathQuaker, but thanks - it's why I wrote them up.
Regarding FoB, I am torn both ways. Full BAB would be nice, and I like the idea of spending ki for bonus attacks. Maybe the same principal could apply to attacks in a standard action too?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hmm, what about something like a new Ki Power.
Enhanced Ki
By spending 1 Ki point, a Monk may apply an enhancement to his attacks. This enhancement lasts for a number of minutes equal to the enhancement granted. A Monk gains a +1 enhancement every 4 levels, but the enhancement is limited by his wisdom modifier. For example, a 4th level Monk with a wisdom of 14, may have an enhancement of +1, while a 12th level Monk with a wisdom of 14 can only have a +2 enhancement as his wisdom is not high enough to grant a +3 modifier. This enhancement is in all ways treated as magical enhancements that weapons get. For example, a Monk that uses Enhanced Ki to give himself a +3 enhancement overcomes DR just as a +3 weapon would. Enhanced Ki only applies to a Monks unarmed strikes, not to any special monk weapons, natural attacks, or other weapons he is proficient in unless they have the Ki Focus property. Temporary enhancements to wisdom (such as through the spell Owl's Wisdom) do not increase the maximum enhancement a Monk may have.
[Edit]
Totally submitted before I was done. Edited to address temporary wisdom enhancements before anyone asks. I limited to weapons with a Ki Focus property because I didn't want to open the possibility for things like monsters with multi-attack that take levels in Monk and can apply Enhanced Ki to their weapons unless all their weapons have the Ki Focus property.
I really like the idea of finding a way to make the Monks fists and feet a weapon. Allowing it the same enchantments that all other weapons can gain. It would be great to see a Monk have more versatility and customization options.
Like Stragen said earlier, make the PC go through training, a series of Acrobatics feats, challenges to his Will, Climbing challenges, whatever the GM can dream up. Make the challenges equal to the proposed enchantment. So a lo level Monk can make his fist a +1 magical weapon or add 1d4 shock damage, etc.
I am very new to the game and I am trying to find ways to help the Monk a little more what I envisioned and that is a bad ass melee combatant that moves fast and strikes hard. He makes up for the lack of armor and weapons through physical and mystical powers. I am already seeing at 2nd level that without multi-classing the Monk can be very one-dimensional and ineffective in many encounters.
|
|
Okay, I've been thinking. This is likely to derail the thread and make me quite the unpopular fellow, but I have to say it. Maybe the real solution is to just remove monks from the game altogether?
This thread has made it obvious that the monk has a lot of problems working against it, and nobody can really agree on how to fix them. Add to that the thematic disconnect-- Wuxia martial arts are cool, but this is a Medieval European-inspired fantasy world we're in. Much like Gunslingers, their presence here is an anomaly.
The main arguments in favor of keeping monks are A)tradition and B)some players wanting to play a bad-ass melee combatant who can take on all comers with his bare hands. I can't agree with A, but couldn't B be accomplished through one of the other classes? I think any of the core full-BAB classes could easily find a "monk build" that lets them do what people play monks to do.
Fighter: simply choose Unarmed as your first weapon training category, and for your Weapon Focus/Spec, and you'll be just as good with your fists as a monk, minus the 2d10 damage dice. You'll have just as many bonus feats, which you can spend on any combat feats you want, and you'll even be able to wear armor.
Barbarian: it makes perfect sense that a wild brawler who fights not through hours of weapon drills but through his own strength and determination would be good at taking things down with his bare hands. Introduce a few rage powers to compliment unarmed strikes and we're there.
Paladin: these guys can already command incredible martial prowess and deliver their deity's fervor with a touch of their hand-- why not a fist? I can see a Paladin archetype that replaces Lay on Hands with Stunning Fist and the paladin's spellcasting with the monk's ki pool. Take the TWF tree and you can Smite Evil with your bare hands!
Ranger: what could be more in the spirit of a monk than wrestling a bear with your bare hands? Rangers already get the TWF feat tree for free-- all you'd really need to do is add Imp. Unarmed Strike to their list of bonus feats and we're all set.
Okay, I've been thinking. This is likely to derail the thread and make me quite the unpopular fellow, but I have to say it. Maybe the real solution is to just remove monks from the game altogether?
The monk fulfils more than just a mechanical role, though. He also fulfils a thematic one, epitomised not just by martial arts movies but in history itself.
The role of warrior-mystic-priest is not covered by any other class, nor can I see how it could be. The other combat classes could evolve martial arts styles but that is not the same thing.
At the end of the day the monk is here to stay.
Maybe the real solution is to just remove monks from the game altogether?
;)
Tangent
You should totally finish what happened to Laori in your CotCT game.
Okay, I've been thinking. This is likely to derail the thread and make me quite the unpopular fellow, but I have to say it. Maybe the real solution is to just remove monks from the game altogether?
I don't think this is a solution, and as others have noted, the ascetic warrior concept is not limited to wuxia/Eastern fantasy.
For a hypothetical next edition, however, I think the monk statblock should be completely scrapped and written from the ground up, however. Forget backwards compatibility entirely, just determine what you want the class to do, clearly, and write that up. I think part of why the monk is so confounding is it's carrying much too much previous edition baggage.
Fighter: simply choose Unarmed as your first weapon training category, and for your Weapon Focus/Spec, and you'll be just as good with your fists as a monk, minus the 2d10 damage dice. You'll have just as many bonus feats, which you can spend on any combat feats you want, and you'll even be able to wear armor.
I think there's still a place for the monk, but this is very true. Honestly, I think the only reason we don't see more unarmed fighters (or barbarians) is 1d3 damage is just a pain to roll. No it's not that hard, but it's nice to just read the damage die for what it is instead of go "6! No, wait, that's 3." If we had a feat like in d20 modern, which increases the unarmed damage die to 1d4, I bet we'd see more unarmed fighters taking the stage, and more people who play monks would focus more on its skillmonkey and defense aspects. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing.
I disagree, I think you can fix the monk and retain backward compatibility. Not that much really needs to be fixed: Unarmed damage, an enhancement to hit, flurry of blows and something to fix their mobility seem to be all we need to address.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I disagree, I think you can fix the monk and retain backward compatibility. Not that much really needs to be fixed: Unarmed damage, an enhancement to hit, flurry of blows and something to fix their mobility seem to be all we need to address.
Let me put it this way: I think a lot of what's wrong with the monk currently came out precisely because of an attempt to maintain backward compatibility. That's why we've got 3/4 BAB yet full BAB sometimes and various other issues.
I think backward compatibility is possible, but I do not want to sacrifice playability in the name of backwards compatibility. My perspective is if you rebuild it, and it's still largely backwards compatible or easy to convert, great. But it should not be a priority, IMHO. Indeed, I think all the changes you suggest could negatively impact backward compatibility depending on how they're implemented. If a 3.x or early Pathfinder monk NPC was designed with certain expectations, the changes made could raise (or lower) the challenge unexpectedly, for example.
I realize backward compatibility is a contentious issue and some are going to prize it more than others, however. So it's not going to be easy to find a point of agreement.
Actually I don't think upgrading the monk to full BAB and d10 hit dice would break backward compatibility at all. After all, the ranger, rogue, wizard and sorcerer all took upgrades to hit dice, and they didn't break.
Backward compatibility means - so far as I can tell - that you can move your character across to the new system and not lose anything.
So, to summarize everyone's thoughts so far.
I had meant to post here, but didn't get around to it. Let me belatedly add my thoughts.
-Monk's inconsistent and jumbled role makes performing any one task extremely difficult.
There is nothing wrong with being inconsistent and jumbled if it had worked. The D&D 3rd Edition abilities of the monk had a strong correspondence to the 1972-75 TV series Kung Fu about a Shaolin monk who wandered through the American Old West helping people. It has a reasonable match to the Bruce Lee movies. Its main mismatch with the Hong Kong wuxia movies is that the Pathfinder monk is not fantastic enough.
There is a tragic logic to the monk's abilities.
1. The fictional monks are known for making many attacks quickly, hence Flurry of Blows.
2. The monk is an unarmed fighter, hence Improved Unarmed Strike and more damage on unarmed strike.
3. The game requires a high AC for melee combatants, and the monks are unarmored fighters, hence a boost to AC, stylized as a Wisodm bonus.
4. The fictional monks are known more for disabling blows and clever moves than outright damage, hence the bonus feats and Stunning Fist.
5. The monk class gets the above abilities at first level, so it had to lose the +1 BAB to make up for the windfall.
6. The monk is known for acrobatics and mobility. At low levels, a monk can get those simply from a high Dexterity, but at higher levels it receives Fast Movement, High Jump, and Slow Fall to help out.
7. The monk is known for wisdom and physcial fitness, hence the high saves and Purity of Body.
8. The D&D 3.0 description of the monk also emphasized that the monk could blend in with the common people due to his wisdom and lack of signs of being an adventurer. This was the final excuse for making the monk a 3/4 BAB class--the monk could contribute to the party outside combat. The monk did not get any abilities to help this, beyond being uarmed and unarmored, since that was mostly roleplaying.
9. Pathfinder added the ki pool to boost the monk's combat versatility.
Hook these abilities together and the result is a trainwreck. Too many of the abilites don't work exactly as intended.
1 & 6. The highly mobile multiple attacks of the fictional monk tripped like a dancer with two left feet over the D&D/Pathfinder rule that multiple attacks require a full-round action: Flurry of Blows and mobility don't work together.
2. The monk's unarmed strike scaled with level on damage, but not on success rate of hitting nor ability to avoid damage reduction nor enchantment enhancements, so it worked terribly at high levels.
2 & 3. All character classes depend on magic items to thrive at high level, but the monk was denied the armor slot (and the weapons slot if fighting unarmed) and had to function underenchanted.
3. The Strength and Constitution requirements to be an effective melee combatant under the D&D/Pathfinder combat rules competed with the Dexterity and Wisdom requirements for good armor class.
4a. The combat manuever feats are feat chains and were not properly covered by the monk's bonus feats.
4b. The Stunning Fist that represented the monk's ability to quickly disable an opponent required a successful hit and a failed Fortitude save to work, and was never good enough to base a strategy upon.
5. The monk has to hit to use his many combat abilities, so crippling his BAB had a disproportionally large bad effect.
7. The high saves sometimes mattered, but being the last man standing with no way to help the party is an awful situation.
8. Blending in with the common people did not happened because the monk was traveling with a standard adventuring party.
9. Most of the ki pool abilities were one-round abilities that cost a swift action, so they could not be used together. The best of them--the extra attack--became the only use of a supposedly versatile ability.
In a game with a high fantasy point build or a game designed for heavy roleplaying and easy combat, the monk's abilities that usually fell short would work properly, so the monk does function in those games.
-NO MORE FEATS. There are a billion "fix feats" out there for monk, and about half of them are either too weak to do the job, too expensive to be worthwhile, or tax any decent build beyond its limit!
I am toying with the idea that the simplest way for the monk to thrive is to allow that class to buy feats with cash.
Dojo Training (General Feat)
A monk devotes himself to constantly training himself to new martial disciplines.
Prerequisites: Monk 1st level.
Benefit: The character's Base Attack Bonus for qualifying for feats equals his monk level plus his base attack bonuses granted from other classes. In addition, the character may purchase a week's training at a dojo or monastery and learn new feats as listed below. The character can learn only one feat per week of training and must meet all the prerequisites for the feat. The monk may buy as many feats as he has time and money to train, but he cannot buy the same feat twice unless the feat specifically allows that.A first-level or higher monk may pay 2000 gp to learn Combat Expertise, an Improved combat maneuver feat, a Style feat, or any first-level monk bonus feat.
A third-level or higher monk may pay 8000 gp to learn a Greater combat manuever feat or a feat in a Style feat's path of feats.
A sixth-level or higher monk may pay 18,000 gp to learn a feat that requires an Improved combat manuever feat as a prerequisite, or any sixth-level monk bonus feat.
A tenth-evel or higher monk may pay 32,000 gp to learn a feat that requires Dex 11 or higher as a prerequisite or any tenth-level monk bonus feat.
This is a rough draft of the Dojo Training feat. I have not checked that the prices and the feat lists are right.
I am a bit confused about the goals of this thread. It is in the house rules section but seems to have a goal of getting the developers attention. That should have occured in Beta (no idea if it did as I was not around). This would be of help if PF 2.0 was coming out.
I personally think it is too late and perhaps people are being a bit too harsh. I feel Rogues have more problems than Monks. Monks got love in the UC, UM, and the APG. If they were going to add feats to help the monk, the time is passed. They are a playable class, although more of an advanced class. It isn't the end of the world for them.
I am sure that some sort of equipment may help them out in UE, but I am of the opinion that is also a bit too late. A lot of people don't play with every book and the further the book is in the life of a game, the less it is used. But I guess it will help some.
All this is with the caveat that the flurry of blows retcon never comes to in. I have no idea why they opened that can of worms. If they want FoB to act like TWF they should have done so themselves with thier own products. If should be officially errata'ed back the the 3.5 wording and tackle that issue in PF 2.0.
Actually I don't think upgrading the monk to full BAB and d10 hit dice would break backward compatibility at all.
While I agree with you, I am absolutely certain I saw a quote from either Jason Buhlman or James Jacobs that said they specifically did not change the monk's BAB/HD for backwards compatible concerns (rogue, ranger, wizard, and sorcerer gained HD but did NOT gain a higher BAB). I wish I could find it but I'd stake my next chocolate milkshake on it. And them's high stakes!
Kerobelis: This is also the "suggestions" forum (see first word in the name of the forum), hence why it is here.
I think of all the most awkward backward compatibility concerns, that is the one anyone playing a monk would NOT have complained about!