MAD Monk? Big Deal! Just be still y'all grasshoppers


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

1 to 50 of 369 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>
Lantern Lodge

4 people marked this as a favorite.

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.

Dark Archive

Is there a question in there somewhere?


Not fitting one of the four roles is not an issue. The inquisitor and bard don't really do it either as well as other classes. They are useful however withing requiring a high level of system mastery.
In short it should not be that hard to make a monk work.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

"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."

So does the Commoner class.

That's an awfully shallow measure of class balance.

Lantern Lodge

Carbon D. Metric wrote:

Is there a question in there somewhere?

Nope.

Lantern Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
StreamOfTheSky wrote:

"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."

So does the Commoner class.

That's an awfully shallow measure of class balance.

I would counter that being able to kill anything you meet is an awfully shallow way to experience the game.

Silver Crusade

3 people marked this as a favorite.
GurgleGutbuster wrote:
StreamOfTheSky wrote:

"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."

So does the Commoner class.

That's an awfully shallow measure of class balance.

I would counter that being able to kill anything you meet is an awfully shallow way to experience the game.

Exactly. I commend the OP for championing a class that he simply has fun with. I find the constant need for "balance" on some of these boards to be self-destructive. Every class is someone's favorite, and damage per round figures into that not one bit.

Roll and role, my friends!


Winter_Born wrote:
GurgleGutbuster wrote:
StreamOfTheSky wrote:

"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."

So does the Commoner class.

That's an awfully shallow measure of class balance.

I would counter that being able to kill anything you meet is an awfully shallow way to experience the game.

Exactly. I commend the OP for championing a class that he simply has fun with. I find the constant need for "balance" on some of these boards to be self-destructive. Every class is someone's favorite, and damage per round figures into that not one bit.

Roll and role, my friends!

Yeah, so just bring a Commoner with you on these epic explorations in. At least that way the party knows ahead of time that your character will be useless.

The point of the lamentations here are that the monk does not even live up to it's class description.


Veldan Rath wrote:
The point of the lamentations here are that the monk does not even live up to it's class description.

That's the biggest problem I've got with the current monk too. Suck when a Mobile Fighter is better at the Monk's job than the Monk.

Lantern Lodge

Winter_Born wrote:
GurgleGutbuster wrote:
StreamOfTheSky wrote:

"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."

So does the Commoner class.

That's an awfully shallow measure of class balance.

I would counter that being able to kill anything you meet is an awfully shallow way to experience the game.

Exactly. I commend the OP for championing a class that he simply has fun with. I find the constant need for "balance" on some of these boards to be self-destructive. Every class is someone's favorite, and damage per round figures into that not one bit.

Roll and role, my friends!

Yeah this one gets it. Thanks!!

Lantern Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Azten wrote:
Veldan Rath wrote:
The point of the lamentations here are that the monk does not even live up to it's class description.
That's the biggest problem I've got with the current monk too. Suck when a Mobile Fighter is better at the Monk's job than the Monk.

I just disagree. I feel like the monk's job is to provide a fun play experience. I realize that a lot of posters here find it difficult to have fun when they aren't "winning" but that really sounds like a personal problem.

Who remembers AD&D when a str of 18 was actually a big deal instead of a requirement for a melee character? Or when Magic Items were important and mysterious instead of life support?

The Monk is IMO, perfect. In the real world, monks have a hard time because they reject the way the world works. The say "No, profits don't come before people." and "Happiness is easy" and in Pathfinder they say "No, I won't kick down the door just because it's there. I'm going to interact with my world and freaking role-play."

The point here is really not about the monk, its about how the gaming culture presents itself on websites like these. Too often I find myself kicking the back of my own head in frustration over the rude and blatant meta-gaming, min-maxing, "I don't smoke nearly enough grass to enjoy this game" posters on here. Not to point any fingers, but screw all of you.


GurgleButbuster you appear to be saying the Monk is awesome because you choose to play it in a way that is fun to you.

Not that I'm suggesting it, but wouldn't you have just as much fun playing any random class and playing it with a monk's philosophy?


Pathfinder PF Special Edition Subscriber

I'm going to agree with the OP. I might... maybe... understand a little hesitation on peoples parts with the basic Monk. However, with the release of the various Monk Archtypes and new options I cannot see how someone could not find some option of interesting Monk to play for fun.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Oh look, there are people in this thread who think Monks suck.

I wasn't aware it was that time of the week again.

Even so, it has been proven time and time again that a Monk can be an awesome character addition to any party. Countless times. And yet, here we are again, with the detractors all crying foul and about to whip out some DPS chart/cosmic alignment phase inducing particle manipulator to show exactly why.

Look, I get it. Some people don't like Monks. Get over it already.

Just to reiterate one of the umpteen "monks r awesome/no monks suck" threads here....

Most of the problems with the Monk are the people playing them.

My buddy James Hetfield got some words of wisdom for you.


GurgleGutbuster wrote:
{a lot of good stuff}

I second all that with one proviso: if I am trying to play a kick-*** martial artists, it is necessary to kick *** now and then. If I can't do that because of poor design (and usually I can't without a lot of hard work and good fortune) then my fun is going to suffer inevitably.

The monk concept is good, there is a lot that monks can do, and some glaring things that they cannot do without great effort. Once those are fixed, the monk will rock mechanically as well as conceptually.


13 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Ah, yes. The typical "Because I can have fun with a badly designed class, it must mean you are a worse player if you cannot" argument.


Winter_Born wrote:
GurgleGutbuster wrote:
StreamOfTheSky wrote:

"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."

So does the Commoner class.

That's an awfully shallow measure of class balance.

I would counter that being able to kill anything you meet is an awfully shallow way to experience the game.

Exactly. I commend the OP for championing a class that he simply has fun with. I find the constant need for "balance" on some of these boards to be self-destructive. Every class is someone's favorite, and damage per round figures into that not one bit.

Roll and role, my friends!

If only it were that simple.


GurgleGutbuster wrote:
Winter_Born wrote:
GurgleGutbuster wrote:
StreamOfTheSky wrote:

"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."

So does the Commoner class.

That's an awfully shallow measure of class balance.

I would counter that being able to kill anything you meet is an awfully shallow way to experience the game.

Exactly. I commend the OP for championing a class that he simply has fun with. I find the constant need for "balance" on some of these boards to be self-destructive. Every class is someone's favorite, and damage per round figures into that not one bit.

Roll and role, my friends!

Yeah this one gets it. Thanks!!

This one doesn't. Ignoring a class's downfalls helps nobody.

"It works in my game." is not a valid excuse for a class to work like the monk does. It is supposed to work in more games than just yours.


GurgleGutbuster wrote:
Azten wrote:
Veldan Rath wrote:
The point of the lamentations here are that the monk does not even live up to it's class description.
That's the biggest problem I've got with the current monk too. Suck when a Mobile Fighter is better at the Monk's job than the Monk.

I just disagree. I feel like the monk's job is to provide a fun play experience. I realize that a lot of posters here find it difficult to have fun when they aren't "winning" but that really sounds like a personal problem.

Who remembers AD&D when a str of 18 was actually a big deal instead of a requirement for a melee character? Or when Magic Items were important and mysterious instead of life support?

The Monk is IMO, perfect. In the real world, monks have a hard time because they reject the way the world works. The say "No, profits don't come before people." and "Happiness is easy" and in Pathfinder they say "No, I won't kick down the door just because it's there. I'm going to interact with my world and freaking role-play."

The point here is really not about the monk, its about how the gaming culture presents itself on websites like these. Too often I find myself kicking the back of my own head in frustration over the rude and blatant meta-gaming, min-maxing, "I don't smoke nearly enough grass to enjoy this game" posters on here. Not to point any fingers, but screw all of you.

Rather than call names can you try to counter points that have been made in various threads? Misrepresenting points does not help either, just saying.


magnuskn wrote:
Ah, yes. The typical "Because I can have fun with a badly designed class, it must mean you are a worse player if you cannot" argument.

This guy gets it.


Seriously if you want to discuss actual issues we can do that. If you just want to chastise go somewhere else. I am always up for friendly debates. What I am not up for is someone just ranting without any logic to what they are saying.

I as a GM should not have to help my player survive because he chose to go monk. My player should not need a high level of system mastery to make the class work. <----That is a main problem the monk class.

You can't really have fun when you are getting your butt handed to you. Yeah the GM can create special scenarios just for the monk, and the other players can step aside, but they should not have to step aside just to get the monk some spotlight time. It should be good enough at something that such things are not needed. As an example if there is a social encounter the party bard will most likely be taking care of it. Nobody is stepping aside just so the player with the bard can have something to do.

We are not asking the monk to do the same amount of damage as a fighter. We are not asking the monk to complete with the rogue for skills.
We are asking the monk to live up to what is in the class description, at least some of it. <--This is also large part of the problem. It does not do what it says it does.
At the very least I want the best unarmed combatant to be a monk.


Bomanz wrote:

Oh look, there are people in this thread who think Monks suck.

I wasn't aware it was that time of the week again.

Even so, it has been proven time and time again that a Monk can be an awesome character addition to any party. Countless times. And yet, here we are again, with the detractors all crying foul and about to whip out some DPS chart/cosmic alignment phase inducing particle manipulator to show exactly why.

Look, I get it. Some people don't like Monks. Get over it already.

Just to reiterate one of the umpteen "monks r awesome/no monks suck" threads here....

Most of the problems with the Monk are the people playing them.

My buddy James Hetfield got some words of wisdom for you.

Well said. I agree that monks get more than enough from the class. The issue normally stems from the perspective of doing damage. The thing is, they aren't the most damaging class around. They rely on movement, good saves(all three) and gradually wearing down the opponent. Seen plenty of monk characters who hold their own both in and out of battle.

If you want to do heaps of damage, go a strength fighter and burn feats in weapon focus and spec. Or play a high strength barbarian. Monks aren't damage dealing tanks. Thats the main point I was getting at.


Winter_Born wrote:
GurgleGutbuster wrote:
Winter_Born wrote:
GurgleGutbuster wrote:
StreamOfTheSky wrote:

"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."

So does the Commoner class.

That's an awfully shallow measure of class balance.

I would counter that being able to kill anything you meet is an awfully shallow way to experience the game.

Exactly. I commend the OP for championing a class that he simply has fun with. I find the constant need for "balance" on some of these boards to be self-destructive. Every class is someone's favorite, and damage per round figures into that not one bit.

Roll and role, my friends!

Yeah this one gets it. Thanks!!

Yup, it helps to ignore all the negative nancys here with their World of Warcraft mindsets about builds and class balance. You'd think this was an Excel Speadsheet game, instead of a roleplaying game.

It's rather easy to filter out the bad attitudes though, and focus on playing a fun class at the table.

That is not the case at all. I don't play WoW personally, and if you peruse the boards long enough you will see that many of us understand that video game balance and table top balance are not the same thing.

This game has a heavy foundation on math. You can ignore that, but it won't go away. RP is good, and it is fun, but it won't make the monk more useful to many players.

It ain't just about the numbers bro.


The best unarmed specialist isn't a monk. The monk has alot of eastern mysticism incorporated. Immunity to natural diseases, bonus to resist enchantment etc. The pure unarmed specialists would actually be something like fighter/drunken master. Good BAB, hitting hard, a bit of ducking and dodging here and there. Monks are more rounded out characters. Can do a bit of this and that and alot of defensive abilities. They are somewhat different from the other melee classes that way since the other melee classes have a more definite focus.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Is it some kind of a new trend to have your first post on the forum as a flamebait for a running war where everyone has said everything already and the only thing achieved is that we have a third "Monks suck/No they don't/yes they do/no they don't/your mother wore combat boots/yeah, and my goat says <Insert Paizo Designer Name> is a bad lover" thread?

Shadow Lodge

I can't say much about the monks mechanics, but think of this: if a fighter in fullplate gets slashed with a longsword, he thinks that hurts. If he gets PUNCHED by some guy wearing robes, and it's doing the same damage, he should be worried.


Sensitive ROLEplayer wrote:
Is it some kind of a new trend to have your first post on the forum as a flamebait for a running war where everyone has said everything already and the only thing achieved is that we have a third "Monks suck/No they don't/yes they do/no they don't/your mother wore combat boots/yeah, and my goat says <Insert Paizo Designer Name> is a bad lover" thread?

I do wonder, myself.

I love the monk. I love the concept. I know it can work brilliantly sometimes. I just want it to be available as a viable option for players who do not have the same level of system mastery that I have, and to have more actual options when I use it than just one or two 'builds' that are the only ones that work.

This is not saying "Monks Suck!" it is saying "Monks need some work to be fun for EVERYONE and not just the OP." Is that so wrong?


Ninjaxenomorph wrote:
I can't say much about the monks mechanics, but think of this: if a fighter in fullplate gets slashed with a longsword, he thinks that hurts. If he gets PUNCHED by some guy wearing robes, and it's doing the same damage, he should be worried.

It won't do the same damage though not over a full round anyway, probably not even on a single attack if the fighter use two hands. :)

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.

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???

I must be playing this game wrong.

But then, I also think Bards rock and that Rogues are pretty kickass too.

Scarab Sages

2 people marked this as a favorite.
magnuskn wrote:
Ah, yes. The typical "Because I can have fun with a badly designed class, it must mean you are a worse player if you cannot" argument.

Ah, yes. The typical "Because I can't kill a Balor in 2 hits with a class it must be broken and unplayable" argument.

See what I did there?


Bomanz wrote:
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).

Bomanz wrote:
I must be playing this game wrong.

No, you're probably doing it right.

Bomanz wrote:
But then, I also think Bards rock and that Rogues are pretty kickass too.

Me too.

Scarab Sages

Dabbler wrote:
Sensitive ROLEplayer wrote:
Is it some kind of a new trend to have your first post on the forum as a flamebait for a running war where everyone has said everything already and the only thing achieved is that we have a third "Monks suck/No they don't/yes they do/no they don't/your mother wore combat boots/yeah, and my goat says <Insert Paizo Designer Name> is a bad lover" thread?

I do wonder, myself.

I love the monk. I love the concept. I know it can work brilliantly sometimes. I just want it to be available as a viable option for players who do not have the same level of system mastery that I have, and to have more actual options when I use it than just one or two 'builds' that are the only ones that work.

This is not saying "Monks Suck!" it is saying "Monks need some work to be fun for EVERYONE and not just the OP." Is that so wrong?

This would be fine if when someone who DOES enjoy the class and plays a fun, vibrant, dynamic character and enjoys the bejeesus out of it and posts that here doesn't immediately get hit with things like:

"At least that way the party knows ahead of time that your character will be useless. "

and
"Suck when a Mobile Fighter is better at the Monk's job than the Monk."

Dabbler, you did it in the LAST thread quite a bit...started off about why the Monk class is broken and horrible, then when given counter point you suddenly come off with this whole "well, you need to have a class that doesn't require system mastery" angle that you are taking now.

This class DOESN'T require system mastery to work.

This class DOES require actually reading the combat section to find out why it shines.

As for more options, I daresay that this class, other than the Fighter, has the most options when it comes to archetypes and feats (style feats, altho other classes CAN take them, who here doubts that they were all made with the Monk in mind??)

Scarab Sages

Dabbler wrote:
Bomanz wrote:
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).

There will always be certain situations where ANY class (even Treantmonk's "god-wizard") can't do squat and can only get out of the way...EVERY class has that problem.

The Monk doesn't need to be "easy to play", any more than a wizard (choosing the right spells to memorize or otherwise its "well geez guys, I memorized a few spells that i thought would help but turns out they dont..sorry, i'll just stand in the corner until we can rest for 8 hours") or the well built cleric ("well jeez guys, I chose a few domains that I liked thematically, but turns out when we are underwater I suck pretty much like everyone else, sorry...oh, and I have that same problem with prepared spells, which is a tough thing to prep for, too...") or even a well built fighter ("I'm 2hf with power attack, cleave, great cleave and other cool stuffs, but that guy is flying and I can't do squat against him either, me and the monk will just sit in the corner and play parcheesi instead")

Man, do you see it yet? There are more than enough options between archetypes and special feats and things that make ANY Class a total bear to play right out of the box in most cases.

Monks are special in that regard either.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

It's all very well to try to ignore the relative balance of mechanics in favor of roleplay. But if you're trying to play Bruce Lee, Kenshiro, or the like, and yet you can't hit or do much damage with your Unarmed Strike, then the mechanics are fighting your concept, and interfering with your roleplay.


Hopefully the fighter thought of buying a longbow...


Bomanz wrote:

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???

I must be playing this game wrong.

But then, I also think Bards rock and that Rogues are pretty kickass too.

I am not there. It could be the GM. You might have a good mastery of the system. It could be that the GM's hands are tied due to how PFS works, and can't adjust or any combination thereof, including things I have not listed.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Bomanz wrote:
magnuskn wrote:
Ah, yes. The typical "Because I can have fun with a badly designed class, it must mean you are a worse player if you cannot" argument.

Ah, yes. The typical "Because I can't kill a Balor in 2 hits with a class it must be broken and unplayable" argument.

See what I did there?

....brought up stuff that has no relation to this topic. Killing a balor is not the standard. Being a well designed class is.


Bomanz wrote:
Dabbler wrote:
Sensitive ROLEplayer wrote:
Is it some kind of a new trend to have your first post on the forum as a flamebait for a running war where everyone has said everything already and the only thing achieved is that we have a third "Monks suck/No they don't/yes they do/no they don't/your mother wore combat boots/yeah, and my goat says <Insert Paizo Designer Name> is a bad lover" thread?

I do wonder, myself.

I love the monk. I love the concept. I know it can work brilliantly sometimes. I just want it to be available as a viable option for players who do not have the same level of system mastery that I have, and to have more actual options when I use it than just one or two 'builds' that are the only ones that work.

This is not saying "Monks Suck!" it is saying "Monks need some work to be fun for EVERYONE and not just the OP." Is that so wrong?

This would be fine if when someone who DOES enjoy the class and plays a fun, vibrant, dynamic character and enjoys the bejeesus out of it and posts that here doesn't immediately get hit with things like:

"At least that way the party knows ahead of time that your character will be useless. "

and
"Suck when a Mobile Fighter is better at the Monk's job than the Monk."

Dabbler, you did it in the LAST thread quite a bit...started off about why the Monk class is broken and horrible, then when given counter point you suddenly come off with this whole "well, you need to have a class that doesn't require system mastery" angle that you are taking now.

This class DOESN'T require system mastery to work.

This class DOES require actually reading the combat section to find out why it shines.

As for more options, I daresay that this class, other than the Fighter, has the most options when it comes to archetypes and feats (style feats, altho other classes CAN take them, who here doubts that they were all made with the Monk in mind??)

Actually it does require system mastery. If not players that can do at least decently well with other classes would do well with the monk on a more consistent basis.

When I stop having to help people out that play monks I might change my mind.

As for as the post where you said a cleric or wizard is useless for 8 hours, I have never seen it. There is enough variety in spells that if that happens the player needs some help.

PS:I have never seen well built "anything" be useless for 8 hours. A well built cleric would be good mechanically, and not just be built on concept alone.


havoc xiii wrote:
Hopefully the fighter thought of buying a longbow...

If Bomanz does not know that having a ranged weapon is PF/D&D 101 then I have to question his claim that he is playing a monk well.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

With all of this aside it seems the OP has read monk threads form a very subjective stand point, and only saw the complaining, without understanding why it was taking place. Any writer should try to understand his audience. Every time someone uses "flavor" as a defense actual weaknesses in the class will be the counter. Saying "it works for me" is not really a standing point either. These come up and get shot down just as quickly.

1.Look at the complaint.
2.Ask is it a valid complaint.
3a.Why or why isn't it valid?
3b.Remember that houserules are not a valid answer since another GM might not allow your group's houserule. Your houserule may be a valid suggestion however.
4. What are the known counters to what I am about to post?
5. Rinse/Repeat.

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

I removed some posts. Can we please stop telling other people they're playing the game wrong?


Bomanz wrote:

This would be fine if when someone who DOES enjoy the class and plays a fun, vibrant, dynamic character and enjoys the bejeesus out of it and posts that here doesn't immediately get hit with things like:

"At least that way the party knows ahead of time that your character will be useless. "

and
"Suck when a Mobile Fighter is better at the Monk's job than the Monk."

Dabbler, you did it in the LAST thread quite a bit...started off about why the Monk class is broken and horrible, then when given counter point you suddenly come off with this whole "well, you need to have a class that doesn't require system mastery" angle that you are taking now.

Perhaps you should consider that I and other posters are saying the exact same thing time and again because it is true.

I have made clear what the monks problems are in other threads, and why they are problems. I can love the class and still be aware if it's shortcomings. I'm sorry if the fact that it HAS shortcomings upsets you when you enjoy playing it, it is not my intention to spoil your fun.

However, if a class has shortcomings, and the monk does, I'm not going to ignore them just to make you feel better about liking monks. Even the developers have conceded that the monk is a weak class and needs fixing.

Bomanz wrote:

This class DOESN'T require system mastery to work.

This class DOES require actually reading the combat section to find out why it shines.

The above sums up my definition of system mastery: that you need to know how the system works in theory and in practice to make the monk work.

Bomanz wrote:
As for more options, I daresay that this class, other than the Fighter, has the most options when it comes to archetypes and feats (style feats, altho other classes CAN take them, who here doubts that they were all made with the Monk in mind??)

That's the problem - you HAVE to have an archetype to make a concept work for the monk. You don't need one for the roles of most other classes. If you want a fighter concept, you can almost certainly do it without an archetype, although the archetype will add gravy.

With the monk, it's not so easy if it's doable at all to make a concept work without using an archetype. Two of the most popular are the sohei and the zen archer, and neither can be made without the archetype. The fact that the monk has all these archetypes that people are playing rather than play core monks is telling you there is something wrong with the core monk.

Bomanz wrote:
There will always be certain situations where ANY class (even Treantmonk's "god-wizard") can't do squat and can only get out of the way...EVERY class has that problem.

I agree, it's how often the situation comes up that is important.

Bomanz wrote:
The Monk doesn't need to be "easy to play", any more than a wizard (choosing the right spells to memorize or otherwise its "well geez guys, I memorized a few spells that i thought would help but turns out they dont..sorry, i'll just stand in the corner until we can rest for 8 hours") or the well built cleric ("well jeez guys, I chose a few domains that I liked thematically, but turns out when we are underwater I suck pretty much like everyone else, sorry...oh, and I have that same problem with prepared spells, which is a tough thing to prep for, too...") or even a well built fighter ("I'm 2hf with power attack, cleave, great cleave and other cool stuffs, but that guy is flying and I can't do squat against him either, me and the monk will just sit in the corner and play parcheesi instead")

What you outline here are problems with spell selection which can be easily rectified (leave some spell slots empty, it takes 15 minutes to fill them with what you need, or learn from it and take a broader selection next time), and equipment selection (that fighter should have remembered to bring his bow).

Bomanz wrote:
Man, do you see it yet?

That there is a glaring difference between limitations that cannot be overcome with any amount of equipment or feat options and those that can? Sure. Other classes have the latter, monks have the former.

The caster can retreat and change their spells, get out their scrolls, use their wands. The fighter can invest in boots of flying or a decent bow - he doesn't need the feats to be able to do something with it and still contribute.

The monk can't change the fact that he needs a lot of different stats at decent levels to function effectively, or else pay a serious feat-tax and even then he'll struggle. He can't so anything about the fact that he can't get full enhancement on his unarmed strike, or that his available weapon selection is lacklustre.

Now in some games this doesn't matter: I'm in one at the moment where we diced for stats and I got lucky, and it's low magic so everyone has the same problems, and my monk is shining nicely, but not every game is like that. Some players are in games where WBL is stuck to or exceeded, and where the options for dealing with foes are limited.

Bomanz wrote:
There are more than enough options between archetypes and special feats and things that make ANY Class a total bear to play right out of the box in most cases.

The thing is you can take the CRB only and make any other class function intuitively - take a fighter, look at the combat feats, and you can practically pick a selection that sound good and the fighter will work reasonably well. Take a wizard and pick out the cool-sounding spells and you can do something.

Monks aren't like that. If you don't have the right attributes, if you don't pick the right feats, and - as you say - you don't really know how the combat system works, you will not be able to make a monk work.

I'll say it again: I love the monk, I love the concept, I love it when it works. I happen to also think it could be fixed to make it easier to play for a novice and allow it more flexible options without resorting to archetypes.


Ninjaxenomorph wrote:
I can't say much about the monks mechanics, but think of this: if a fighter in fullplate gets slashed with a longsword, he thinks that hurts. If he gets PUNCHED by some guy wearing robes, and it's doing the same damage, he should be worried.

Some fighters will just PUNCH him back in return & do more damage.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
wraithstrike wrote:
Bomanz wrote:
magnuskn wrote:
Ah, yes. The typical "Because I can have fun with a badly designed class, it must mean you are a worse player if you cannot" argument.

Ah, yes. The typical "Because I can't kill a Balor in 2 hits with a class it must be broken and unplayable" argument.

See what I did there?

....brought up stuff that has no relation to this topic. Killing a balor is not the standard. Being a well designed class is.

Thanks, spared me from writing a response myself.


I just feel that the monk uses overly complex mechanics to achieve a somewhat unsatisfying take on the martial-arts character. A lot of this owes to "patching" the 3.5 version's problems. I get why it's like that, but it doesn't make it any more fun to play, for me.

+1 to all those upthread who state that Role Vs. Roll is a false dichotomy — but let's not be too quick to discount people who have issues with the monk's mechanics. If you're all about characterization, you can have lots of fun playing a commoner. I have done! But that doesn't mean the mechanics are functioning flawlessly.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

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.


Kryzbyn wrote:
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.

+1


Pathfinder PF Special Edition Subscriber
Kryzbyn wrote:
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?

1 to 50 of 369 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / MAD Monk? Big Deal! Just be still y'all grasshoppers All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.