|
Extensive GMing with a variety of experienced players all who are talented RPers and builders has taught me something about Pathfinders base classes. They are all very well made and much of how good a class is depends entirely on the prowess of the player, harshness of the GM, setting of the story and the luck of the d20.
People can min-max, power game and number crunch all they want, hell if that's how you enjoy your role playing games power to you, but all the arguments over it amount to a urination contest that no one will ever win.
I think the point that is being missed is, playing the monk as is is akin to giving a child a broken toy. He sure might have fun with it, but it's still broken. He can use his imagination all he wants to play with it and get enjoyment out of it, but it's not being used as intended, nor can it be.This statement confuses the heck out of me. It really does.
I'll have to ask you, how do YOU think its intended... and why do you think it cannot be used that way?
Look at the monk's stated role:
Role: Monks excel at overcoming even the most daunting perils, striking where it's least expected, and taking advantage of enemy vulnerabilities. Fleet of foot and skilled in combat, monks can navigate any battlefield with ease, aiding allies wherever they are needed most.
What does the monk do?
Overcome daunting perilsStriking where least expected
Take advantage of enemy vulnerabilities
Fleet of foot
Skilled in combat
Navigate the battlefield
Aid allies
OK, now look at how the monk does these:
- Overcome daunting perils - this is a bit fuzzy to say the least, but the monk can certainly overcome some conventional threats with good saves and good perception. Call this one a maybe.
- Strike where least expected - well they can be stealthy, so that gets a tentative yes.
- Take advantage of enemy vulnerabilities - how exactly? The monk has two options in combat: hit the foe, and use maneuvers. MAD combined with either partial enhancement or low damage output (depending on whether you use unarmed strike or a weapon) and 3/4 BAB means they are not very good at the former, while there are large groups of foes that are not susceptible to the latter. The monk has fewer options for getting past DR than other combat classes, too. I have to tick this one with a very definite 'no.'
- Fleet of foot - check.
- Navigate the Battlefield - if they pump their acrobatics, check.
- Aid allies - again, how? Anybody can 'aid another' or flank, and we have already seen that attacking-wise the monk isn't on a par with the other combat classes, so how is her doing this? He can't heal them, buff them or any such. This one gets a 'no' in my book.
So what we have is a class that is highly mobile, can get around the battlefield well, but can't be relied upon to do anything when he gets where he's going. Perhaps fundamentally, his unarmed strike - his 'special attack' - can't be fully enhanced and what enhancement you can get is horribly expensive, leaving it a nerfed option at higher levels. He's on 3/4 BAB if he uses his mobility, he has to stand still to use his flurry-ob-blows. He's good at maneuvers, but not automatically and maneuvers don't work on many creatures.
Now on his plus side, the monk is brilliant defensively, good AC and good saves, but he won't be able to sustain hits as well as other combat classes. If he finds a target with middling AC or that is vulnerable to maneuvers, he can do a number on it. Against non-humanoid/large targets with high AC, the monk suffers. He's a combat class that cannot fight reliably - by which I mean, a paladin or ranger without using their smite or favoured enemy can still do better than a monk.
This is what Kryzbyn means, I think, when he says the monk is not fulfilling his purpose. Under some situations, he's great. But without them, what does he have to fall back on? Less than any other combat class, is the answer.
Yep. Exactly. Thanks for fielding that one for me Dabbler.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Look at the monk's stated role:
Role: Monks excel at overcoming even the most daunting perils, striking where it's least expected, and taking advantage of enemy vulnerabilities. Fleet of foot and skilled in combat, monks can navigate any battlefield with ease, aiding allies wherever they are needed most.What does the monk do?
Overcome daunting perils
Striking where least expected
Take advantage of enemy vulnerabilities
Fleet of foot
Skilled in combat
Navigate the battlefield
Aid allies
Alrighty...lets take this piece by piece then.
Overcome daunting perils
Daunting - causing fear or discouragement; intimidating
Peril - a. Imminent danger. b. Exposure to the risk of harm or loss.
2. Something that endangers or involves risk.
I would say that running along a narrow ledge or across a rope, making an "impossible" leap over the channel of flaming lava, or leaping from ledge to ledge all seem to apply.
Striking where least expected
Being stealthy is one part... but being able to maneuver through the combat line to flank an enemy and provide a flanking bonus seems to also apply. Or later to Abundant Step to move quickly across a battle field.
Take advantage of enemy vulnerabilities
How is this a automatic fail. The Monk is not a full BAB class so lets compare the Monk to a Rogue on this line. Hmm... BAB is the same. Both have the same chance to finesse. Both can benefit from flanking or attacking flat-footed to aide in to-hit. The Monk benefits from ki and can bypass DR/Magic. But can also use weapons just as well as a Rogue. Damage is not the same... "taking advantage of enemy vulnerabilities" does not automatically bring to mind a specific amount of damage. So I'd say "Plausible" here.
Fleet of foot
Yup... big check mark here.
Skilled in combat
The Monk is at least as skilled in combat as both the Rogue and Cleric, and just like them more skilled than a commoner. So I'll include a "Yes" here as well.
Navigate the Battlefield
Agreed... and their movement speed gives them a +4 to acrobatic checks to jump for each 10 feet of extra movement.
Aid allies
A Monk can set up a flank just as well as a Rogue if not better. The Monk can make the "Aid Other" action just as well as a Rogue or Cleric. A Monk can move quickly to a fallen ally to feed them a potion or use their wisdom to use the Heal skill... and that is just the first few things that come to mind off of the top of my head. So again... "Plausible". And depending on your skill selections there are plenty of out of combat ways to aid as well.
So I ask you... how is the class a "broken toy". It seems to me that they fill those guidelines pretty well to me.
I think if you actually read Dabbler's points, you'd have your answer.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think if you actually read Dabbler's points, you'd have your answer.
I did. What has you saying I did not?
His biggest points of contention seem to be that the class does not measure up to the other combat classes... If you believe measuring up is just damage... then there is nothing else I can say. I tried to go down all the points of the class and expand upon what the class CAN do.
I personally have a belief that the Monk has more than just "Two" options in combat, and that there are lots of ways to Aid your allies in combat.
If you think the Monk has to measure up to the Fighter its my belief you need to play an Unarmed Fighter Archtype.
Mostly this part:
So what we have is a class that is highly mobile, can get around the battlefield well, but can't be relied upon to do anything when he gets where he's going. Perhaps fundamentally, his unarmed strike - his 'special attack' - can't be fully enhanced and what enhancement you can get is horribly expensive, leaving it a nerfed option at higher levels. He's on 3/4 BAB if he uses his mobility, he has to stand still to use his flurry-ob-blows. He's good at maneuvers, but not automatically and maneuvers don't work on many creatures.
Now on his plus side, the monk is brilliant defensively, good AC and good saves, but he won't be able to sustain hits as well as other combat classes. If he finds a target with middling AC or that is vulnerable to maneuvers, he can do a number on it. Against non-humanoid/large targets with high AC, the monk suffers. He's a combat class that cannot fight reliably - by which I mean, a paladin or ranger without using their smite or favoured enemy can still do better than a monk.
When I hear taking advantage of an enemies weakness the first thing that comes to mind is sneak attack....but maybe that's just me.
Mostly this part:
So what we have is a class that is highly mobile, can get around the battlefield well, but can't be relied upon to do anything when he gets where he's going. Perhaps fundamentally, his unarmed strike - his 'special attack' - can't be fully enhanced and what enhancement you can get is horribly expensive, leaving it a nerfed option at higher levels. He's on 3/4 BAB if he uses his mobility, he has to stand still to use his flurry-ob-blows. He's good at maneuvers, but not automatically and maneuvers don't work on many creatures.
Now on his plus side, the monk is brilliant defensively, good AC and good saves, but he won't be able to sustain hits as well as other combat classes. If he finds a target with middling AC or that is vulnerable to maneuvers, he can do a number on it. Against non-humanoid/large targets with high AC, the monk suffers. He's a combat class that cannot fight reliably - by which I mean, a paladin or ranger without using their smite or favoured enemy can still do better than a monk.
Again I see comparisons to full BAB classes... that is like apples and oranges. His flurry of blows is "basically" two-weapon fighting... so of course he needs to full attack to do it the same as anyone else two-weapon fighting with out some special ability or feat. Comparatively speaking... the Monk two-weapon fights as good as a Rogue or any other 3/4 BAB class. The Monk sustains hits better than a Rogue past 7th level as he can self-heal.
On his enhancing his fists... if that is an issue they've given us Brass Knuckles for that.
On his enhancing his fists... if that is an issue they've given us Brass Knuckles for that.
And I really don't mean to bicker, but this is exactly what I mean when I say the monk is overly complex and relies on somewhat sloppy "patches" to achieve basic functionality.
Some guy is gonna come out now and link to some historical martial-arts brass knuckles, fine, cool. But the martial artist tropes we want as characters are not using brass knuckles to a man. There's a gaping hole here. And enchanting the unarmed attacks is not the only hole...
There's variable BAB for full vs. standard attacks. And manuevers... which gets "patched" again but forces players to choose which level they choose to emphasize certain tactics. All while making the math for basic attacks completely impenetrable to new users.
I really agree that the monk has great flavor, but I feel the mechanics execute that flavor poorly. To some extent, this is true of many of the pathfinder classes, just because of the cruftiness they've inherited. But please, when people are voicing their concerns about the mechanics, let's not pretend things are fine and dandy because we roleplay.
... and less even should we pretend things are fine and dandy because feat x or weapon y was released.
If you believe monks are fine as is, then great. If you can not understand why a lot of other folks don't see it that way, then I don't know what else needs be said.
There is no comparison of other classes going on.
It's a comparison of stated supposed ability, and a lack of a mechanical back up. The crunch doesn't back up the fluff.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Mostly this part:
So what we have is a class that is highly mobile, can get around the battlefield well, but can't be relied upon to do anything when he gets where he's going. Perhaps fundamentally, his unarmed strike - his 'special attack' - can't be fully enhanced and what enhancement you can get is horribly expensive, leaving it a nerfed option at higher levels. He's on 3/4 BAB if he uses his mobility, he has to stand still to use his flurry-ob-blows. He's good at maneuvers, but not automatically and maneuvers don't work on many creatures.
Now on his plus side, the monk is brilliant defensively, good AC and good saves, but he won't be able to sustain hits as well as other combat classes. If he finds a target with middling AC or that is vulnerable to maneuvers, he can do a number on it. Against non-humanoid/large targets with high AC, the monk suffers. He's a combat class that cannot fight reliably - by which I mean, a paladin or ranger without using their smite or favoured enemy can still do better than a monk.
Again I see comparisons to full BAB classes... that is like apples and oranges. His flurry of blows is "basically" two-weapon fighting... so of course he needs to full attack to do it the same as anyone else two-weapon fighting with out some special ability or feat. Comparatively speaking... the Monk two-weapon fights as good as a Rogue or any other 3/4 BAB class. The Monk sustains hits better than a Rogue past 7th level as he can self-heal.
On his enhancing his fists... if that is an issue they've given us Brass Knuckles for that.
And took away again. Or have you read the errata? Brass knuckles are WEAPONS. Monks cannot flurry with them, because they aren't MONK weapons. Monk cannot get their unarmed damage dice with them; because they are weapons and always inflicts the damage d3 damage (for medium).
No, if you are unaware of this, I find that I cannot believe that you are that knowledgeable of monks, sir.
Master Arminas
I've had players run monks, and be dissatisfied. What they wanted to run is barbarians with a high ac.
His flurry of blows is "basically" two-weapon fighting... so of course he needs to full attack to do it the same as anyone else two-weapon fighting with out some special ability or feat.
But using it automatically removes the "highly mobile", "fleet of foot", and "navigate the battlefield" aspects of the monk.
Comparatively speaking... the Monk two-weapon fights as good as a Rogue or any other 3/4 BAB class.
Uh...what?
A TWF rogue is going to add a number of d6's in sneak attack damage to his attack routine...like, possibly dozens at high level. What does the monk get to equal this?
He gets more flurries obviously....just make sure to not be mobile so you can take those full attacks.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The TWF rogue will pull ahead of the monk on damage. However, he has a lower chance of hitting from the TWF penalties. Furthermore, what if the opponent is not susceptible to sneak attack. What then? The rogue is left doing damage which is now far inferior to the monk. Also, the rogue and other melee classes are dependent on their weapons. This means their weapons can be sundered or they can be disarmed. Creatures with magnetic abilities could pull the weapons out of their hands, rust monsters could disintegrate their weapons etc. The monk isn't vulnerable to any of these. I could continue explaining but there's alot to go through. Looking at a class shouldn't just be the raw numbers, also have to think about what they are vulnerable to and the applicability of their class abilities.
You are thinking too much in the 3.5 mindset here, the rogue can sneak attack a lot more things in pathfinder, the restricted nature of sneak attack got a bit changed, if the reports of my spies are correct.
Damn right on rust monsters and monks. They beat them silly and won't lose very much. Rogues can get disarmed, monks, well, they always have the unarmed strikes to fall back on.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Extensive GMing with a variety of experienced players all who are talented RPers and builders has taught me something about Pathfinders base classes. They are all very well made and much of how good a class is depends entirely on the prowess of the player, harshness of the GM, setting of the story and the luck of the d20.
People can min-max, power game and number crunch all they want, hell if that's how you enjoy your role playing games power to you, but all the arguments over it amount to a urination contest that no one will ever win.
You my friend have been skipping posts. We have already said the monk can be well made. The issue is that it is harder to do so than with other classes, and you need to be a good player to make it work. In short "if you know the game well" is not a good argument. I once played with someone that used the expert class, and did well. He chose his spots carefully in combat so as not to draw too much attention, and his skill did a lot for the party. The expert class however, is not made to be a PC class.
I'm so confused...if the Monks are such a terrible class and are worthless and broken in the extreme, why does mine dominate the local PFS scenarios and make the GM's cry???Our argument is not so much that monks are bad, but that it takes a lot of skill to make one good, and even then there are certain situations when they are stuck without much they can do except get out of the way of attacks.
Our fixes are aimed at making the monk easier to play and to have a higher number of effective options for playing (as opposed to existing options that are more effective).
I must be playing this game wrong.No, you're probably doing it right.
But then, I also think Bards rock and that Rogues are pretty kickass too.Me too.
Me three.
The designers themselves want to fix the Monk. Why are we still discussing this?
I love monks. I love the flavor, I love the way they play, I love what pathfinder has done to them, but I loved them in 3.5 when a lot of their special abilities were pretty useless in the big scheme of things. I even loved monks in 4th edition, particularly my Elidran Monk in a Dark Sun campaign.
I've heard a lot of the arguments against monks, that they are dependent on multiple abilities, that they don't have the damage output of a fighter, that its hard for them to scale with other classes because of magic item limitations, that they are too soft, that they don't fit in the flavor, the list goes on I'm sure.
It seems to me that the biggest issue is that Monks do not have as easy a time fitting into the classic four. They are not immediately defenders or strikers, not controllers or leaders. They don't fight as well as a fighter, take hits as well as a barbarian, sneak as well as a rogue, and they have no explicit magic to speak of.
That sounds about right. In the real world (Its a game, I know, have fun) Monks don't fit in. They sequester themselves away from society, never becoming president, CEO, or MVP, but a chill monk is always cool to be around.
A Pathfinder monk should never be considered a drain on the party, and can always help here or there, in subtle ways. Because inner peace and spirituality are subtle.
I don't think every class should fit into one of four roles. Fourth Edition did that, and while it is a fine game, most of us are clearly playing pathfinder most of the time for a reason.
If you don't like monks, don't play them. If your DM can't accommodate a play style that is not Diablo-esq, that really sounds more like a personal problem than a problem with the Rules As Written.
This game is about having fun, telling a kick-butt story, and exploring other worlds and other kinds of people. I think the Monk Class lets players do that just fine.
I think you understand the monk.
The designers themselves want to fix the Monk. Why are we still discussing this?
The pro-monk "as is" people either are good enough to play the monk, or their GM helps them, but they just don't know it. That makes them blind and deaf to the players who can't make it work or they just don't care about anyone else, and as long as it works for them they think it is ok.
Every time a poster has put a monk on these boards in order to defend it, and he had a legitimate way to play it, he also used tactics and builds that showed a good command of the system*. In the other situations it became obvious due to lack of rules knowledge, and/or tactics, that they were being helped, even if they did not know it.
*That just show support that system mastery is needed if the divide is so big. I have never seen anything in between from a monk "as is" defender.
At 4th level, the monk is flurrying and using ki to do THREE attacks with d8 damage and full strength mod. All with no feat investment. If they all hit, that's 3d8+3xSTR. The greatsword wielding fighter on the other hand is doing 2d6 + 1.5xSTR, plus 2 for weapon specialization. Even if you ignore his extra attack from ki(a limited resource), the monk is still doing more damage.
I hate to turn this into a number crunching comparison, but I find those numbers a little off.
4th lvl Monk
say, 18 Str
2 attacks at +6/+6 for 1d8+4 each
avg damage 17 if both hit
vs. AC 16, 55% chance to hit (for 8.5), only a 30% chance of 2 hits (for 17 combined)
4th lvl Fighter (with power attack, wep focus, wep spec)
say, 18 Str
1 attack at +7 (PA) for 2d6 +6 (str) +2 (spec) +6 (PA), total (2d6+14)
avg damage 21
vs. AC 16, 60% chance to hit (for 21)
And that's assuming they have the same strength (whereas the fighter will usually have higher, since they don't need to invest in Wis and Dex as heavily). And this is at a good level for the monk (only lost 1 point of BAB, just improved UA damage)...bump it up to 5th, and the monk loses another point of BAB, while the fighter gets Weapon Training. Bump it to 6th, and the fighter gets another iterative attack.
I'm sorry, but a well-built fighter is going to outdamage a well-built monk. And it's a LOT easier to build a fighter well.
Alright monk "as is" crowd could you tell us how or why the monk can succeed instead just saying RP and have fun. I am asking for a more scientific answer.
Example:Well in this situation the monk built like _____ can do ______.
This has been done before, but like I said in my last post. It required a level of skill that was above the average/occasional player.
PS:Please don't use corner cases that are not likely to show up.
PS2:The other posters used the core monk instead of one of the patches(archetypes).
One could even be a right cad, and make an archer/pugilist fighter given enough feats over the levels. You won't punch as hard as the monk, but more accurately, and the arrows are how you do the most damage.
Oh how I do love fighters.
I don't know why everyone is assuming that the monk doesn't do as much damage as the fighter. He can potentially do more damage than the fighter, and he has speed and bunch of other cool abilities.
At 4th level, the monk is flurrying and using ki to do THREE attacks with d8 damage and full strength mod. All with no feat investment. If they all hit, that's 3d8+3xSTR. The greatsword wielding fighter on the other hand is doing 2d6 + 1.5xSTR, plus 2 for weapon specialization. Even if you ignore his extra attack from ki(a limited resource), the monk is still doing more damage. And he scales really well. He can do 8 attacks at 16th level! And they all do more base damage than a manufactured weapon does. Yes, he's not going to hit with them all, but he does have full BAB - 2 when flurrying, so he's not really behind the fighter that much.
Monks are great out of the box, but it only gets better for them once you bring in style feats. Dragon Ferocity is silly, and Elemental Fist is a great way to pump up even more damage. There are of course many other options for monks in the supplements, if you want to do things other than dish out damage. Paizo has given them a lot of love there.
Conclusion - Monks are at the very least on par with fighters.
Sir that is false. The fighter does more damage and pulls away at higher levels. Even using a cestus, and probably just using unarmed strikes also it still does more damage.
If a fighter uses a kukris for TWF or a two-handed weapon it is not really even close.PS:I was assuming that "conclusion" was referring to damage.
PS2:The most damaing monk is the monk that gets access to fighter feats, and even it could not keep up*. This is the Martial Artist archetype. It gets access to fighter combat feats, and still can't keep up.
*That is the best I have seen posted anyway.
One could even be a right cad, and make an archer/pugilist fighter given enough feats over the levels. You won't punch as hard as the monk, but more accurately, and the arrows are how you do the most damage.
Oh how I do love fighters.
I am not understanding this post.
What is a right cad, and what does archer pugilist have to do with anything?
The Monk is at least as skilled in combat as both the Rogue and Cleric
<Facepalm>
So you are saying that the monk is at least as good at fighting as two non-combat classes and that makes it not-broken as a combat class?
And at that, it arguably isn't even true. The cleric can self-buff, the rogue has sneak attack and has access to some better weapons than the monk. In fact if you look at the monk's role, there isn't a whole lot that a rogue cannot do - the only thing he lacks is the good Fort and Will saves and the movement.
When the rogue runs up against something nasty, he can use his sneak attack to good effect. Not everything is susceptible to sneak attack, but then again a bigger not everything is susceptible to maneuvers. He doesn't have the flurry-BAB of the monk, but he does get full enhancement on a decent weapon. As a flanker he is preferable to the monk, in surprise he can do more damage than the monk.
And the rogue is not a combat class, he's the skills monkey, yet he can do most if the things a monk can do.
This is the whole problem - the monk is essentially a combat class. He is not a spell-caster even as much as a paladin or ranger. He is not a skills-monkey like the rogue. When faced with a foe, he has only one option: fight. He should be compared to the other combat classes when it comes down to combat, and when he is, offensively he comes up short unless the player knows how to really make something of the abilities he does have, under which circumstance he just about breaks even at least at low levels.
I have a lot of fun playing monks, too. But that doesn't blind me to the fact that the class has problems, if anything it makes me very aware of the fact.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The Monk is at least as skilled in combat as both the Rogue and Cleric<Facepalm>
So you are saying that the monk is at least as good at fighting as two non-combat classes and that makes it not-broken as a combat class?
And at that, it arguably isn't even true. The cleric can self-buff, the rogue has sneak attack and has access to some better weapons than the monk. In fact if you look at the monk's role, there isn't a whole lot that a rogue cannot do - the only thing he lacks is the good Fort and Will saves and the movement.
When the rogue runs up against something nasty, he can use his sneak attack to good effect. Not everything is susceptible to sneak attack, but then again a bigger not everything is susceptible to maneuvers. He doesn't have the flurry-BAB of the monk, but he does get full enhancement on a decent weapon. As a flanker he is preferable to the monk, in surprise he can do more damage than the monk.
And the rogue is not a combat class, he's the skills monkey, yet he can do most if the things a monk can do.
This is the whole problem - the monk is essentially a combat class. He is not a spell-caster even as much as a paladin or ranger. He is not a skills-monkey like the rogue. When faced with a foe, he has only one option: fight. He should be compared to the other combat classes when it comes down to combat, and when he is, offensively he comes up short unless the player knows how to really make something of the abilities he does have, under which circumstance he just about breaks even at least at low levels.
I have a lot of fun playing monks, too. But that doesn't blind me to the fact that the class has problems, if anything it makes me very aware of the fact.
I'd like to point out that with the sole exception of the Rogue, every other 3/4 BAB class is also at least a 2nd tier spellcaster. Rogues are often seen as kind of iffy as well (it's widely accepted that Rangers and Bards eat their cookies), and Rangers and Bards both do a pretty solid job of either keeping up with Rogue damage without sneak attack or actually exceeding it. :\
I mean, sure, monks fight about as good as clerics and druids. But monks don't come with an extra meat shield, summon celestial superbeings, grow 12 feet tall while sporting damage reductions and being an avatar of whichever deity you nod to the most, transform into elementals and giant spellcasting animals, throw tsunamis at people, or otherwise tell reality to bend over and take it in the trunk.
I mean, if we go from comparing monks vs martials to monks vs 3/4 casters, heaven help them. It only gets worse man. Almost all 3/4 BAB classes can out-fight the monk and fighting isn't even their main trick (the 6th to 9th level casting is their main trick, and it's a damn good one too!).
And took away again. Or have you read the errata? Brass knuckles are WEAPONS. Monks cannot flurry with them, because they aren't MONK weapons. Monk cannot get their unarmed damage dice with them; because they are weapons and always inflicts the damage d3 damage (for medium).
No, if you are unaware of this, I find that I cannot believe that you are that knowledgeable of monks, sir.
Master Arminas
Knowledgeable about Monks... yes.
Able to keep up with every change of the Errata after a extended time away from the boards.... NO. Ignore that last fly-away comment then.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
OK folks, I suggest a time out.
There are people in this thread who are perfectly fine with Monk as it is.
There are people in this thread who ain't.
Devs have officialy stated that there is a problem with Monks, and it warrants some kind of adjustment that will happen at some point in the future.
So since folks who are fine with Monk as it is will most likely be fine with Monk as it will be, and folks who aren't happy with Monk will hopefully be fine with Monk 2.0, how about we all go home and bloody stop starting threads that have little use for anyone, except for making some people foam at mouth and wearning down Ashiel's keyboard?
Also, while I applause all those normal, civil people who try to keep away from forum warfare as far as possible, it would be cool if you all learned how to let some threads die, because I'm sure as hell that somebody out there is giggling right now seeing how he/she managed to drop a burning match into a gas tank. For humanity, some obvious threads are obvious.
Holy **** Gorbacz, you posted something I agree with!
The Monk is at least as skilled in combat as both the Rogue and Cleric<Facepalm>
So you are saying that the monk is at least as good at fighting as two non-combat classes and that makes it not-broken as a combat class?
<Facedesk>
Apparently we are running into a difference of opinion.
A Wizard is a non-combat class. A Sorcerer is a non-combat class. A Bard is a non-combat class. Rogues and Clerics are both 3/4 BAB combat classes that mix it up in combat.
A Cleric can self-buff... but also party buff. Even then, in a properly staged combat that is not an ambush done by the party, the Cleric can be expending rounds of combat to get those buffs into place. (In most of the games I've played in rarely does the Cleric try and keep buffs up all the time.) While the Monk will have moved into position and made at least one attack in the first combat round. No, generally the combat Cleric dons shield and pulls weapon and moves into combat without buffs, saving his buffs for the boss battle. (Notice I said combat cleric, as you CAN build a cleric to be non-combative just like any other class.)
A Rogue's sneak attack is shut down/hampered by fortification on armor and various class features/feats in addition to monsters being immune. Granted he might potentially do more damage than the Monk, but allot of that is luck of the Dice.
Rarely are Dice as perfect statistically speaking as the numbers would allow. (Not everyone owns Game Science dice) Nor do the numbers allow for player's who are KNOWN for their bad dice rolls with any set of dice they use.
I'm sorry to say that we'll have to agree to disagree that a Monk has only one thing he can do in combat. (In your opinion fight badly)
OK folks, I suggest a time out.
There are people in this thread who are perfectly fine with Monk as it is.
There are people in this thread who ain't.
Devs have officialy stated that there is a problem with Monks, and it warrants some kind of adjustment that will happen at some point in the future.
So since folks who are fine with Monk as it is will most likely be fine with Monk as it will be, and folks who aren't happy with Monk will hopefully be fine with Monk 2.0, how about we all go home and bloody stop starting threads that have little use for anyone, except for making some people foam at mouth and wearning down Ashiel's keyboard?
Also, while I applause all those normal, civil people who try to keep away from forum warfare as far as possible, it would be cool if you all learned how to let some threads die, because I'm sure as hell that somebody out there is giggling right now seeing how he/she managed to drop a burning match into a gas tank. For humanity, some obvious threads are obvious.
I'm sorry if I came off as waring... I'm just enjoying the debate. Your post caught me in mid-post so I'll leave it at that. *Edit - Its all laughter and giggles on my end. Hope everyone else is of good cheer.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The Monk is at least as skilled in combat as both the Rogue and Cleric<Facepalm>
So you are saying that the monk is at least as good at fighting as two non-combat classes and that makes it not-broken as a combat class?
<Facedesk>
Apparently we are running into a difference of opinion.
We are. To me, the cleric is a full caster that happens to have 3/4 BAB. He can buff himself up to fight well (and then he fights better than the monk). At least half the time, the cleric is casting spells in a fight, not fighting. Fighting, for the cleric, is secondary.
So the monk is as good as a cleric in fighting, when combat is the monk's primary purpose and the cleric's secondary one? And you are telling me there isn't something wrong there?
The rogue's primary role is non-combat: he's the scout and the trapspringer, the face and the go-find-it man. His primary role lies in his skills, not in fighting. In fighting you expect him to be an also-ran with a trick up his sleeve.
When it comes to fighting, he's as agile as the monk. Sure, his sneak attack can be shut down, but then so can the monk's maneuvers. So he and the monk are on a par offensively, save that the rogue can do a lot of other stuff useful to the party, and the monk cannot.
I'm sorry to say that we'll have to agree to disagree that a Monk has only one thing he can do in combat. (In your opinion fight badly)
Please do not put words into my mouth. The problem is a lot more complex than 'fight badly', and I have never said that monks fight badly, I have said that they have difficulty fighting on a par to the other combat classes in all situations.
Take the paladin, he's very comparable to the monk: good AC, good saves, lots of special abilities. The paladin has smite evil to deliver the goods on foes, but that isn't all he has; if all else fails he is a full BAB class who should have a fully enchanted weapon and can self-buff. So even out of his element, he can do something reasonably effective.
Now compare that to the monk: what can the monk do in combat? Hit things and use maneuvers, basically. I know he can move around the fight etc, but the bottom line comes down to one of those two. The monk is very good at maneuvers, but maneuvers do not work well on a very large subset of creatures. In addition, they rely on the monk having taken the feats for those maneuvers - they are not automatic.
Then there's hitting things, which is what the monk has to fall back on if he has maneuvers and they won't work. The problem here is that the monk has two options, neither of which are good.
Unarmed strike: the damage scaling is great, but the threat range is minimal and the enhancement is capped at +5 and costs the earth. Even with flurry-of-blows this means that the attack bonus is going to be less than the paladin's above. If you cannot hit, you cannot inflict damage. All those attacks are pointless if you can't actually land enough blows to make a difference. Now if the monk takes an amulet of mighty fists with just raw enhancement bonuses, he can get the hits, but then he's losing out on the effects and damage the paladin can do with his fully enhanced weapon.
Monk weapons: the only monk weapon that is moderately good is the temple sword, and that's basically a longsword. Otherwise monk weapons are light and do minimal damage with minimal threat ranges. So a monk can take a fully-enhanced weapon and hit just about as often as the paladin when he can't do his thing, but he's going to do much less damage.
A monk holding his own in these circumstances is possible, but you are pulling out all the stops to do something another class isn't even trying hard to achieve. This leaves the monk little room for variation and customisation.
OK folks, I suggest a time out.
There are people in this thread who are perfectly fine with Monk as it is.
There are people in this thread who ain't.
Devs have officialy stated that there is a problem with Monks, and it warrants some kind of adjustment that will happen at some point in the future.
So since folks who are fine with Monk as it is will most likely be fine with Monk as it will be, and folks who aren't happy with Monk will hopefully be fine with Monk 2.0, how about we all go home and bloody stop starting threads that have little use for anyone, except for making some people foam at mouth and wearning down Ashiel's keyboard?
Also, while I applause all those normal, civil people who try to keep away from forum warfare as far as possible, it would be cool if you all learned how to let some threads die, because I'm sure as hell that somebody out there is giggling right now seeing how he/she managed to drop a burning match into a gas tank. For humanity, some obvious threads are obvious.
My keyboard thanks you sir. It's already missing the "W", "A", "S", "D", "O", "B", and "E" labels on the keys. "M" is half missing. :P
These threads are a bit of fun though. You always learn something new. I learned that people seem to think being roughly equivalent to a cleric without spellcasting means the monk is awesome. I never would have thought such a thing conceivable if not for this thread.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Unarmed strike: the damage scaling is great, but the threat range is minimal and the enhancement is capped at +5 and costs the earth.
Fun fact. A +5 amulet of mighty fists costs 250,000 pounds of copper; 8,333 oxen; 12,500,000 pounds of wheat; 6,250,000 chickens; 1,250,000 pounds of iron; 125,000 goats; 125,000 pounds of cinnamon; 2,500 pounds of gold, or 250 pounds of platinum.
...
Please do not put words into my mouth. The problem is a lot more complex than 'fight badly', and I have never said that monks fight badly, I have said that they have difficulty fighting on a par to the other combat classes in all situations...
My apologies... again we will have to agree to disagree. I'll say no more as apparently what I'm saying is not being taken in the spirit it was offered and I'm apparently not able to address in words what I've experienced in game both as DM and as a Player. :)
These threads are a bit of fun though. You always learn something new. I learned that people seem to think being roughly equivalent to a cleric without spellcasting means the monk is awesome. I never would have thought such a thing conceivable if not for this thread.
Right... Hah! :)
My apologies... again we will have to agree to disagree. I'll say no more as apparently what I'm saying is not being taken in the spirit it was offered and I'm apparently not able to address in words what I've experienced in game both as DM and as a Player. :)...
Please do not put words into my mouth. The problem is a lot more complex than 'fight badly', and I have never said that monks fight badly, I have said that they have difficulty fighting on a par to the other combat classes in all situations...
Hey that's OK. I have had experience as DM and player too, and I can make a monk work - I just don't like how little leeway it leaves me to make the monk I want to play. The class is great conceptually and has some neat abilities that are very thematic, but it needs some work to give it a proper direction, or if not then some decent options that are both fun to play and mechanically viable.
I agree the monk is fun, and can be effective, but we disagree in that I think it could be better to match the other combat classes.
... My player should not need a high level of system mastery to make the class work. <----That is a main problem the monk class ...
I see this point a lot and I have to disagree with it.
I can't think of a single complex RPG (table top, single computer, or online). That doesn't have beginner and experienced classes. Infact most of the online games I have tried explicitly state something along the lines of 'very difficult for beginners' in the setup.
If you are trying to introduce a new player to the game (never played an RPG of any kind) do you steer him right at the wizard. My guess would be no. Why? Because they are squishy and difficult. I and almost everyone I've talked to tries to talk newbies into a basic martial class like fighter or barbarian at first. Because it is easier to learn a smaller number of things at once. If they really want a spell caster we'll try to propose cleric because it at least is less squishy, so it is more forgiving if they make a mistake. If they really insist on arcane blaster then we would go with sorc and help them pick their spells. That way they only need to learn a few at first.
I've played with a lot of newbies over the decades. I don't think I've ever seen one successfully start with wizard right out of the gate without a huge amount of hand-holding.
So the system already has classes that require more system mastery than others. ANY complex system has easier and more difficult options/paths.
I am undecided on the question on whether the monk as a class is flawed, but the fact that it is further to the end of the difficulty scale is actually a point in favor of it in my opinion.
|
No No No No No....it has clearly been stated that reading just one section of the book (combat) is indeed "system mastery" by someone here. Further, Wraithstrike himself has come here and said that he has never seen an ineffective wizard (because of having picked/prepped the wrong spells, like a NooB might) so clearly the Monk is by far mechanically MUCH more difficult than say...the wizard.
Yep, Noobs clearly can operate a Wizard, but not a Monk, and anyone who can't see that has clearly got blinders on.
I have seen the light my friends...this class is broken.
Now to the oddly stated topic, which i think is whether or not the monk is too badly flawed to be playable.
I can understand and follow the math arguments about their low effective damage causing them to not contribute significantly to the party. And I sort of agree with most of it.
However, I also have to say, that doesn't match with what I've experienced.
I have seen them played in multiple groups clear back to 2nd edition. I have rarely seen them 'fail to contribute to' or 'be an anchor on' the group. The few times they haven't done well it was a bad fit to the campaign (once low magic mostly ghosts and once everyone else was a mounted knight troop) or obviously poorly played. I also have to say I think they have done a better job with each edition of the game. Up to the times I've seen them played in PF they are sometimes even the 'star' of the show.
Obviously, I have not seen even a tiny percentage of the games played across the world. But every other complaint I have read about players, classes, options, etc... I have seen at least a little bit of at some time or another. It just seems odd to me that this one issue of something that is 'so horrible that it should never have made it to publication' is one that I have never seen.
{good points}
It just seems odd to me that this one issue of something that is 'so horrible that it should never have made it to publication' is one that I have never seen.
Thing is, we aren't saying that it's 'so horrible it never should have seen publication' - or at least I am not, anyway. The monk is almost there in many ways, but it has some issues that always hamper it in one way or another and cut off it's full potential.
The monk is meant to be a combat class, and combat classes are meant to fight. Defensively the monk is very good - joint top of the league with the paladin - but their offensive potential is seriously hampered. If you compare them with any other combat class, their performance is sub-par. A fallen paladin fights better in the offence than the monk, as long as maneuvers don't come into play - and this is when the monk is meant to be doing their 'thing'.
The Monk is at least as skilled in combat as both the Rogue and Cleric<Facepalm>
So you are saying that the monk is at least as good at fighting as two non-combat classes and that makes it not-broken as a combat class?
<Facedesk>
Apparently we are running into a difference of opinion.
A Wizard is a non-combat class. A Sorcerer is a non-combat class. A Bard is a non-combat class. Rogues and Clerics are both 3/4 BAB combat classes that mix it up in combat.
A Cleric can self-buff... but also party buff. Even then, in a properly staged combat that is not an ambush done by the party, the Cleric can be expending rounds of combat to get those buffs into place. (In most of the games I've played in rarely does the Cleric try and keep buffs up all the time.) While the Monk will have moved into position and made at least one attack in the first combat round. No, generally the combat Cleric dons shield and pulls weapon and moves into combat without buffs, saving his buffs for the boss battle. (Notice I said combat cleric, as you CAN build a cleric to be non-combative just like any other class.)
A Rogue's sneak attack is shut down/hampered by fortification on armor and various class features/feats in addition to monsters being immune. Granted he might potentially do more damage than the Monk, but allot of that is luck of the Dice.
Rarely are Dice as perfect statistically speaking as the numbers would allow. (Not everyone owns Game Science dice) Nor do the numbers allow for player's who are KNOWN for their bad dice rolls with any set of dice they use.
I'm sorry to say that we'll have to agree to disagree that a Monk has only one thing he can do in combat. (In your opinion fight badly)
Both clerics and bards can be built to fight or not to fight primarily. The bard actually does more damage than a cleric unless the cleric is allowed to get all his buffs up. If only one of them had to be chosen as a combat class it is the bard.
... My player should not need a high level of system mastery to make the class work. <----That is a main problem the monk class ...I see this point a lot and I have to disagree with it.
I can't think of a single complex RPG (table top, single computer, or online). That doesn't have beginner and experienced classes. Infact most of the online games I have tried explicitly state something along the lines of 'very difficult for beginners' in the setup.
If you are trying to introduce a new player to the game (never played an RPG of any kind) do you steer him right at the wizard. My guess would be no. Why? Because they are squishy and difficult. I and almost everyone I've talked to tries to talk newbies into a basic martial class like fighter or barbarian at first. Because it is easier to learn a smaller number of things at once. If they really want a spell caster we'll try to propose cleric because it at least is less squishy, so it is more forgiving if they make a mistake. If they really insist on arcane blaster then we would go with sorc and help them pick their spells. That way they only need to learn a few at first.
I've played with a lot of newbies over the decades. I don't think I've ever seen one successfully start with wizard right out of the gate without a huge amount of hand-holding.So the system already has classes that require more system mastery than others. ANY complex system has easier and more difficult options/paths.
I am undecided on the question on whether the monk as a class is flawed, but the fact that it is further to the end of the difficulty scale is actually a point in favor of it in my opinion.
I have had new people play wizards, sorcerers, and psions. Now some of their spell selecting sucked, but not all of it. Many of them wanted to blast things, which is not the optimal thing to do, but they still contributed some. They might ask me "what does this spell do?". I would tell them. They might try to cast a close range spell from too far away. They quickly learned to cast defensively.
The class I try to keep them away from is the druid so they don't to do so much book keeping, but once they get a "decent" understanding of how things work it is not an issue. You can say my statement is false, but people who can play every other class reasonably well still suck at monks. Other posters have attested to this on these boards, and those that are above average still have to work to make the monk effective. That is not a good sign for the monk.Once again I say, dont tell me the monk does not have issues, tell me why it does not suck. Telling me "not it doesn't" is not going to convince anyone.
Once again I refer you to this post-->click me