| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I believe monks are on par with ninjas, rogues, inquisitors, bards, magus, clerics, oracles ect on hitting things and dealing damage so why the hate?Because that's not even remotely true. All of those classes are superior to Monks at hitting and dealing damage, and all of them besides Rogue and Ninja are also capable of doing much much more both in and out of combat.
To be fair, I would say the monk has an edge on most of these classes at least some of the time because FoB gives them near-full BAB. Not a large edge, but an edge. However I would also say the the rogue and ninja also have a lot they can do outside of combat, because they have far more skill ranks and more useful class skills, while the rest are all spell-casters. Even then you could probably make a combat-focussed rogue or ninja that can match the monk or come very close in scoring hits and damage.
However the reason the monk has an edge is largely because the monk is a combat class, and equipment will be focussed on combat, rather than anything else. For all these other classes, combat is secondary to their main function. The monk should be compared with the classes for which combat is the main focus - barbarian, fighter, paladin, ranger - and against them he doesn't fair very well at all, even when you take out the paladin's smite, or the ranger's favoured enemy, or the barbarian's rage.
Edit: And it's not hate, it's frustration that a class with so much great potential is let down so badly by the mechanics. We don't hate the monk, we want the monk fixed!
I believe monks are on par with ninjas, rogues, inquisitors, bards, magus, clerics, oracles ect on hitting things and dealing damage so why the hate?
1. It is not hate.
2. The monk can do respectable damage so that is not really the issue.The issues are detailed in this thread, and every other monk thread that comes up.
To be fair, I would say the monk has an edge on most of these classes at least some of the time because FoB gives them near-full BAB. Not a large edge, but an edge.I believe monks are on par with ninjas, rogues, inquisitors, bards, magus, clerics, oracles ect on hitting things and dealing damage so why the hate?Because that's not even remotely true. All of those classes are superior to Monks at hitting and dealing damage, and all of them besides Rogue and Ninja are also capable of doing much much more both in and out of combat.
Bard, Inquisitor, and Magus both have ways of boosting up their to-hit to Full-BAB equivalent or close to it as a swift action (Inspire Courage, Justice Judgement+Bane and Arcane Accuracy). That's before the 6th-level spellcasting comes in for buffs and the Magus' spell combat.
Bringing up spellcasting just shows the problem of the comparison though; a medium BAB spellcaster is pretty different from a medium BAB martial character.
I love monks (one of my top 3, flavor-wise). I just wish the core monk wasn't so pitiful.
Edit: And it's not hate, it's frustration that a class with so much great potential is let down so badly by the mechanics. We don't hate the monk, we want the monk fixed!
Another casualty of the Rolemasterization of D&D between AD&D and 3rd Edition. Low-level Monks in AD&D were weak-- on par with low-level Mages-- but they turned into combat beasts at mid- and high-level, largely because it turns out that mobile skirmish classes are more effective when the rules actually allow you to move and attack at the same time.
That's not a dig against Rolemaster. Warrior Monks are awesome in Rolemaster, because all of their abilities were designed to work in Rolemaster.
Differences:
- Abovementioned, Monks in AD&D could move and attack in the same round. Fighters were actually good at fighting in AD&D, too.
- Monks' stunning attacks were not limited use. They occurred automatically when the Monk's attack roll succeeded by five or more.
- Monks had a chance of flat killing an enemy with every bare-handed attack. Every time they stunned an opponent, they rolled percentile dice-- and if the result was less than the opponent's AC + the Monk's level minus seven (low AC was better) the target dropped dead.
- Deflect Arrows was not 1/round. You rolled a saving throw every time someone shot at you, and if you made the save, they missed.
- Instead of Spell Resistance (which is a hindrance) AD&D Monks had resistance or flat immunity to specific spells. Spells you actually want to be resistant to.
If Monks could actually use the rules they were designed for-- moving their full movement rate each round while making their full allotment of melee attacks at their full attack bonus-- and they didn't have 'class abilities' that made them objectively weaker, they'd actually be an awesome class again.
Problem is, Pathfinder fans are by and large not fans of AD&D-- so they're overly attached to the 3e legacy rules that more or less ruined the Monk class.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Part of the issue in these discussions is that we keep moving around when we are talking about things and where. Schrodinger's Barbarian can pounce and has superstition...what else are we adding and at what level are we comparing it?
You can't have all things at all times, and these thought experiments tend to get exposed quickly when you actually have to build them out and make choices along the way.
I don't think assuming a Barbarian has Superstition or Pounce is a case of Schrodinger's Barbarian. In fact, I'd guess most reasonably optimized builds (key word is "reasonably") have both rage powers, probably with the human favored class bonus too.
Assuming the Barbarian is raging is about as "Schrodinger"-ish as assuming a fighter is wielding a sword. Or that a sorcerer is casting spells. In fact, I'd say the fighter having a sword is much more Schrodinger-ish, as the class does not grant swords, while simply being a Barbarian gives you access to Rage, just like a Sorcerer can cast spells just by virtue of being a Sorcerer. Hell, even saying a monk has Ki points is more Schorinder-ish, as monks lack Ki at some levels AND archetypes (and I'm not even citing the stupidly high Ki-cost of many Ki Powers!). I'm yet to see a Sorcerer archetype without spells. Or a Barbarian without Rage (or Rage-like mechanics).
Most people commentating here are not Monk-haters, but Monk-fans! If they hated the monk, they'd most likely not even care that it's broken. Maybe even enjoy the fact.
The most passionate posters here, who so eagerly ask for fixing of the class and propose possible solutions are fans of the class. They want the class to work because they want to play it without hampering the party's survival/effectiveness.
Claiming all of them are mistaken, for the class is perfectly balanced and they are just playing it wrong is silly, to say the least, specially when we remember even Devs acknowledged the issues with the Monk.
If you instead claim everyone complaining here is just a power-gaming munchkin who can't be satisfied with the class (very balanced) power level, then it's not just silly, but rude as well.
I had a pouncing superstitious barbarian in a PbP game I ran so it is not just a myth.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've said it before and I'll say it again. Posting builds is generally a waste of time and shows off the talents of the builders more so than the classes themselves; except when someone is showing the particular strengths of a particular tactic. The last like eight times we've posted builds, no good has come of it. It just shows what one letter out of the alphabet looks like. It's not about having everything at all times, nor is it about having nothing at all times.
It's for this reason that I often find many of the theoretically optimized builds pretty useless in my games. I've seen builds that push AC like it was a drug, but are torn apart in an actual game because they lacked offense and were whittled away, or because they focused on offense so heavily that they were torn apart by a group of weeny kobolds. I've seen players who had spell DCs in the 30s in the low teens, who were killed because their AC was only 10 and 3 shadows smacked them.
I believe simplicity is a strength. Overspecialization is a weakness. I believe non-combat is critically important to success. Why do people think I'm pro-Ranger and Paladin exactly? It's not because of the raw numbers (which tell a tale but only a half-tale). I've said many times that Fighters can push raw damage really well. And have good ACs. But when it comes to a martial, I'd rather have the guy who deals solid (if not the best) damage, has good defenses (not just AC), and has options (healing ability damage, more skills, self-healing, etc). Those are things that all contribute to success in an actual game, and mean a lot more to me than high stats in a particular spot.
This is one of the reasons I try to keep my tutorials and examples as simple as possible, and as distanced from specific builds as possible. I don't claim barbarians are good because of "AM Barbarian". I don't claim sorcerers are good because of the "Postman" build. I don't claim wizards are good necessarily because of the "Batman Wizard" wizard or the "God Wizard" (but I might recommend certain builds based on their merits). I claim that the barbarian is pretty awesome because he doesn't rely on archtypes to function, has multiple abilities that give him strong and meaningful options, and ways to deal with things. Everything I claimed that a barbarian can do in this thread, they can. They don't have to be a particular build, just care enough to take it. If you wanted to fit it all into a build, you could. All you needed was:
4 rage powers for the basics (superstitious, strength surge, lesser beast totem, and beast totem). For the more awesome stuff, you can add 3 more powers (greater beast totem, witch hunter, and spell sunder). That still leaves room for you to do most everything I mentioned and still have room for multiclassing an the Extra Rage power feat to customize your barbarian to your individual likings.
Pretty much what Ashiel said.
Builds just show the skill of the builder, not the strength of the class. It does not take a genius to figure out that a 3/4BAB class with self-buffs and decent weapons will out-hit and out-damage a monk trying to fight unarmed, all other things being equal. It does not take a genius to work out that a class relying on four good stats will suffer next to one requiring two.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Pretty much what Ashiel said.
Builds just show the skill of the builder, not the strength of the class. It does not take a genius to figure out that a 3/4BAB class with self-buffs and decent weapons will out-hit and out-damage a monk trying to fight unarmed, all other things being equal. It does not take a genius to work out that a class relying on four good stats will suffer next to one requiring two.
Could not disagree more.
Without builds, people chase moving goal posts. With builds you can move things around, you can point to changes, but all of it is within a framework of discussion.
Discussing a class outside of the framework of the class as it would actually exist in game is all about which person can frame the discussion better to fit the narrative they are creating.
When you post a build, that build exists to be studied. If you do it poorly, the forum will help you improve it, or post alternative ideas.
It is easy to frame discussions and discuss things in abstract, you will always have a ton of outs to move the goal posts to.
Posting builds gives you direct comparisons at similar levels. If you want to move things, you are starting from a baseline.
Unless you don't play in games that actually use the rules, and that will be exposed quickly when you try and make a legal build and can't.
EDIT: The two easiest ways to find out if someone on here is full of it is to ask them to FAQ something they said and ask them to show it in a build.
This is how you separate the wheat from the chaffe.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Actually, every time I see a build posted in a discussion, the discussion stops being about the topic, and becomes about the build. It devolves into, "Why did you choose x? Y would be better."
When people start theory crafting, they are talking about possibilities they can clearly envision in their head. When Ashiel was talking about the Barbarian previously, I was building it with feats, rage powers, ability scores etc. in my head. I could almost reach out and grasp the character sheet. In essence, Ashiel did post a build, you just couldn't see it.
The problem, also, with posting a build, is when people compare builds, someone, inevitably, posts a counter-build to perfectly oppose the posted build, thus 'disproving' the original build. We, of course, refer to this as the Schrodinger build.
The only way to really post builds with any reasonable degree of fairness, is if the two people were to build the classes, and submit them both to one person, so they can verify the builds exist, then post them both at the same time.
Maybe the problem with theory crafting, is you can't envision the class crafted without it being 'on paper' so to speak? Ashiel, Dabbler, myself, and others seem perfectly fine with seeing what the build and combos are capable of, without actually needing a full character sheet to stat it out. You seem to be the only one I ever see requiring a build to prove every point in a debate.
|
|
What are we doing here without builds? People are posting things they say they can do, other people are saying they can do other things, rinse, repeat.
No evidence, lots of text.
Ashiel didn't post a build, specifically because when she does post builds they can be looked at as a whole rather than an group of parts that can be moved with the discussion.
When you post a build you have to explain when you took X feat, what items you bought, etc...
Scrodinger's build doesn't exist because when you post the build you can't change it unless you say "I am switching this out". At which point you now have a new build with all of it's potential strengths and weaknesses?
I would be fine with your proposed build solution. I would feel completely comfortable using the internal email on here to send it to you.
Hell I said I would post first so someone can just build a counter.
As I said, the easiest way to see who is trying to discuss and who is trying to BS is to ask them to FAQ or ask them to post a build.
Both of those things open you up to having your opinions evaluated by others. If you aren't willing to do that, you are hear to preach not discuss.
Like I said, name a level and I'll either post first or e-mail to you.
What are we doing here without builds? People are posting things they say they can do, other people are saying they can do other things, rinse, repeat.
No evidence, lots of text.
Ashiel didn't post a build, specifically because when she does post builds they can be looked at as a whole rather than an group of parts that can be moved with the discussion.
When you post a build you have to explain when you took X feat, what items you bought, etc...
Scrodinger's build doesn't exist because when you post the build you can't change it unless you say "I am switching this out". At which point you now have a new build with all of it's potential strengths and weaknesses?
I would be fine with your proposed build solution. I would feel completely comfortable using the internal email on here to send it to you.
Hell I said I would post first so someone can just build a counter.
As I said, the easiest way to see who is trying to discuss and who is trying to BS is to ask them to FAQ or ask them to post a build.
Both of those things open you up to having your opinions evaluated by others. If you aren't willing to do that, you are hear to preach not discuss.
Like I said, name a level and I'll either post first or e-mail to you.
Remind me again, exactly what build are you proposing? I don't remember what point your are trying to prove with a posted build.
Good Stuff
A few months ago I finally sat down and looked at the inquisitor. The class is awesome. I like the ranger a lot also. Yeah the fighter can out damage both of them, but I don't have to go out of my way to be useful in many ooc situations. Bards are pretty sweet also.
PS:Before anyone takes this the wrong way -->I am not anti-fighter though. Sometimes I do just want to hit things, and I still make a fighter work out of combat in some situations, but it requires more effort on my part.
Pretty much what Ashiel said.
Builds just show the skill of the builder, not the strength of the class. It does not take a genius to figure out that a 3/4BAB class with self-buffs and decent weapons will out-hit and out-damage a monk trying to fight unarmed, all other things being equal. It does not take a genius to work out that a class relying on four good stats will suffer next to one requiring two.
Could not disagree more.
Without builds, people chase moving goal posts. With builds you can move things around, you can point to changes, but all of it is within a framework of discussion.
Discussing a class outside of the framework of the class as it would actually exist in game is all about which person can frame the discussion better to fit the narrative they are creating.
When you post a build, that build exists to be studied. If you do it poorly, the forum will help you improve it, or post alternative ideas.
It is easy to frame discussions and discuss things in abstract, you will always have a ton of outs to move the goal posts to.
Posting builds gives you direct comparisons at similar levels. If you want to move things, you are starting from a baseline.
Unless you don't play in games that actually use the rules, and that will be exposed quickly when you try and make a legal build and can't.
EDIT: The two easiest ways to find out if someone on here is full of it is to ask them to FAQ something they said and ask them to show it in a build.
This is how you separate the wheat from the chaffe.
A build might be able to prove a point, but it is still the player's building skills that matter. I have done the build vs build thing before. I have also helped the other poster by suggesting they do X, Y, and Z. Had I not corrected them it would look like the gap was bigger than it was.
Many times when posting builds people will go out of their way to find a situation that the build won't do well in, no matter how much of a corner case it is.
Schrodinger's class(fill in with wizard, barbarian, etc) is no closer to extinction than Schrodinger's scenario(situation made to make sure build X fails).
|
|
I believe the assertion was that barbarians were clearly and unquestionably superior.
So I figured if that were the case I would have no chance building an equal level monk that had as much value to the party as the Barbarian.
So that seems to be the challenge.
Specific criteria tend to muddy the water into pointless oddball builds that aren't really playable. That is, unless we are discussing who could better fit in with a group of "X." If we want to do that, I'd be game for that as well.
Is it subjective? Absolutely. This whole debate is subjective. But at least with builds we can make actual comparisons.
Maybe as a 4th in a party of the iconic wizard, rogue and cleric? This would be an advantage for the Barbarian, as that would be the classic tank role, but I'm fine with eliminating as many excuses as I can off the top.
PFS rules to make it simple? I'm flexible as long as both sides have the same rules.
|
|
Good StuffA few months ago I finally sat down and looked at the inquisitor. The class is awesome. I like the ranger a lot also. Yeah the fighter can out damage both of them, but I don't have to go out of my way to be useful in many ooc situations. Bards are pretty sweet also.
PS:Before anyone takes this the wrong way -->I am not anti-fighter though. Sometimes I do just want to hit things, and I still make a fighter work out of combat in some situations, but it requires more effort on my part.
Inquisitors are probably my current favorite class. Perfect example of a class that looks better built out than in abstract. They get so many little things that add up to big things, and are unbelievably flexible.
|
|
A build might be able to prove a point, but it is still the player's building skills that matter. I have done the build vs build thing before. I have also helped the other poster by suggesting they do X, Y, and Z. Had I not corrected them it would look like the gap was bigger than it was.
Many times when posting builds people will go out of their way to find a situation that the build won't do well in, no matter how much of a corner case it is.
Schrodinger's class(fill in with wizard, barbarian, etc) is no closer to extinction than Schrodinger's scenario(situation made to make sure build X fails).
Agree 100%. I always propose using an AP or module for the discussion to avoid hand crafted scenarios (which this thread is also full off...)
The game is taking a build into a situation with other players. Why not have the discussion also exist in that space.
I always feel like if I post a build and someone else posts a build, we now have a frame of reference for discussion.
But it's easier just to try to move the discussion to areas where you can "win" so you can show how smart you are.
Pointless.
If the monk is so bad, it should be impossible for me to build anything that anyone would look at next to a Barbarian and not clearly see that they would rather take the Barbarian.
In fact, that should be the criteria. You are in a three person party of "X". You go to the Inn and you can only select one person to bring on "X" adventure.
Who do you pick?
Actually, to avoid having to 'fill the role' it should be a 5 man party. A Cleric, Rogue, Tank Fighter, Wizard, and a choice of Monk or Barbarian as an extra.
That way, we can be as useful as we want. Otherwise, we are forced to fit into a certain roll. If it was a party of Rogue, Cleric, Wizard, we'd have to be more defensively minded, to fill the tank role. As an optional 5th man, we don't have to be so defensive, nor do we have to be purely offensive.
|
|
I am completely fine with that. It is actually a better idea than what I had. And I think it should be open to anyone who wants to put up a build, so we can have a wide sample size. I would even open it up to other classes.
So the 4 iconics walk into the bar (at the appropriate level) and need to pick one person. Who do they want?
Just let me know the level and if you want me to post it or email it. Maybe even make a separate thread?
Design Manager
|
I love the monk.
And would probably never play one in a low-point buy game. As has been mentioned, the monk has multiple requirements to be effective, and has a build that REQUIRES the synergies from all these stats to play together to be effective. You can play a fighter who has nothing but Strength going for him and do okay. You can play a wizard with nothing but Int, a cleric with nothing but Wisdom, and still do what your class is supposed to do (how well is not the issue at hand). But what do you cut with a monk? Take away Wisdom, half your class abilities are useless. Take away Strength, your combat effectiveness is highly impaired, same with Dex. No Dex, and Evasion is for looking at, and not much else.
Monks are desperate for ability points, and don't work without 3-4 above averae stats. Hard to argue that's not broke somewhere.
In my gaming group we usually roll stats first and decide what we want to build from there. It's somewhat telling that when someone gets lucky and rolls two 16's and an 18 they yell things like "Sweet! I'm totally playing a monk!"
You can argue builds until the cows come home (or are eaten by dragons en route) but if you're starting a new campaign and you have a 15 point buy for stats, you aren't going to see many monks at the table. The monk is really an "all things being equal" kind of discussion, because that's where the monk starts to lose out. I typically try to dissuade inexperienced players from playing a monk, even though I probably play a monk 1 out of every 4 times I play in a game, because the class requires a certain amount of experience, and a certain amount of luck. Monks can dominate the field, but way more stars (good rolls, experience, extensive knowledge of combat maneuvers, etc.) need to come into alignment for that to happen than with the other classes.
I personally don't post builds. I dislike getting into build debates. I'd be happy to review and comment on them though.
Inquisitors are probably my current favorite class. Perfect example of a class that looks better built out than in abstract. They get so many little things that add up to big things, and are unbelievably flexible.Good StuffA few months ago I finally sat down and looked at the inquisitor. The class is awesome. I like the ranger a lot also. Yeah the fighter can out damage both of them, but I don't have to go out of my way to be useful in many ooc situations. Bards are pretty sweet also.
PS:Before anyone takes this the wrong way -->I am not anti-fighter though. Sometimes I do just want to hit things, and I still make a fighter work out of combat in some situations, but it requires more effort on my part.
When I first saw them I was not impressed at all, but I was bored one day and they have grown on me since then.
I did get the impression that the barbarian was completely superior to the monk in the other post. I think a 13th level build is good. Most GM's stop at around that point from what I read on the boards.
Level 13: No multiclassing
WBL:140,000 gp, with no more than 33%(46,200) of your wealth going to any one item.
Point Buy: 20 points
Books allowed: CRB, APG, UC, UM.
You get two traits, and no two traits can be in the same category.
Races:Core Only
edit:A 7th level build should be posted also. That is when many builds come into their own.
I am completely fine with that. It is actually a better idea than what I had. And I think it should be open to anyone who wants to put up a build, so we can have a wide sample size. I would even open it up to other classes.
So the 4 iconics walk into the bar (at the appropriate level) and need to pick one person. Who do they want?
Just let me know the level and if you want me to post it or email it. Maybe even make a separate thread?
I will alter a build that I already have access to.
Should we keep it to core? I don't think anyone(too many people) is picking on the zen archer or Sohei. The martial artist gets some respect also.
edit: IIRC the barbarian will lose pounce, but so be it.
Where I am from to hate a monk is bad luck. For those in doubt, witness the power of the monk below.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wN89wVzj4W8
Where I am from to hate a monk is bad luck. For those in doubt, witness the power of the monk below.
Fixed that for you.
I actually think that the smaller the party, the more punished niche classes are. In a party of 3 people, I'd probably never want a fighter. In a party of 6, then a Fighter would likely be more welcome. Mostly because the smaller the team the more likely you will need someone who isn't overly focused and is more capable in different situations.
With a party of cleric, bard, and wizard, I'd rather have a Ranger or Paladin for a front-liner. In a party with 1 cleric, 1 wizard, 1 bard, 1 paladin or ranger, then bringing in a Fighter might be more logical (you have most of your problem solving covered).
A few months ago I finally sat down and looked at the inquisitor. The class is awesome. I like the ranger a lot also. Yeah the fighter can out damage both of them, but I don't have to go out of my way to be useful in many ooc situations. Bards are pretty sweet also.
PS:Before anyone takes this the wrong way -->I am not anti-fighter though. Sometimes I do just want to hit things, and I still make a fighter work out of combat in some situations, but it requires more effort on my part.
Pretty much this. I'm not an anti-Fighter (or anti-Monk). In fact, I like both and wish they were a little more versatile. I just put more stock in the whole adventure. To me, adventures are a lot more than Final Fantasy XIII style linear walkways that separate various random battles. Even in combat, I tend to prefer battles that are varied. Not everything is just going to be +x to hit, +y to damage. We might encounter a room filled with poison gas, or face enemies who love using curses, or energy drain, ability damage, or some other trick. We might face dangers where whacking it with a sword isn't much good but slowing it down might be. We might find ourselves in a location with an Indiana Jones style onset trap that rolls a giant ball of "you're not going to like this" down a hallway, with the door at the end of the hallway locked and needs to be opened quickly.
When building characters, I tend to be pretty defensive. I tend to put value on things like superstitious because it helps you avoid becoming a lawn ornament. I put value on the ability to revive your party's cleric if he goes down, or keep yourself healed and status-ailment free. I put value on the ability to choose whether you are using your resources or not. I put value on the ability to cross class some skills and not worry about sweating it. I put value on being able to adapt when not in your favorite situations. I put value on being able to function when your gear doesn't (broken, dispelled, etc).
When comparing classes, I tend to look at what both can do. I offer advice and suggestions based on what I see happening in a game. I've had several posters thank me for helping them with their own games. For example, Grimmy found value in some of my posts, and Lemmy let me know that my advice for his Paladin really paid off. I didn't throw a build at Lemmy and say "here play this and win". I critiqued some feats, offered a few good ones, and gave him some ideas for what his options were. That was all that was necessary.
=======================================
My biggest problem with the monk is purely mechanical. It's not the flavor (I've shown before that the monk is just as good making Friar Tuck as it is Jet Li). It's that in comparison to the other classes the monk is mostly lacking. There has been some patch-fix attempts by Paizo in the form of a lot of new feats and several new archtypes that are worthwhile. However, my biggest problem is that the archtypes that are worthwhile basically remove key concepts about the monk (zen archer is barely recognizable as a monk in play, and the same with the sohei), or require more and more feat investments (such as the martial art style feats). The reason I find the feat investment bit a bit troublesome is that monks tend to have to expend lots of feats to make them on par with some guy whose abilities are mostly feat neutral (and thus his feats will be selected to raise himself, rather than to make up for deficiencies).
Fixed that for you.Where I am from to hate a monk is bad luck. For those in doubt, witness the power of the monk below.
I always liked this one.
Fixed that for you.Where I am from to hate a monk is bad luck. For those in doubt, witness the power of the monk below.
By the way, I'd say that was probably an Unarmed Fighter vs a Monk. Neither has any magical enhancement, and both are probably equal level. In'd say roughly 3rd to 5th. In that situation, I think the Monk may have the tactical advantage. They are fairly good at being defensive while, mostly, naked.
I always liked this one.Fixed that for you.Where I am from to hate a monk is bad luck. For those in doubt, witness the power of the monk below.
The one just emphasizes what a Monk isn't in game. In real life, the Monk is the premier unarmed martial fighter. You take a knight from the medieval ages (possibly even the hundred year war where so there was a more real threat of fighting), strip them naked, and put them in a life or death fight with a Shaolin Monk, and that Shaolin Monk would destroy him.
You take a fighter, strip him naked, toss him against a monk in life or death fight, and it could probably go either way, depending on the level. And that's largely because the fighter will be unarmored, and therefore, easy to hit.
The problem, also, with posting a build, is when people compare builds, someone, inevitably, posts a counter-build to perfectly oppose the posted build, thus 'disproving' the original build. We, of course, refer to this as the Schrodinger build.
This. The problem is often that builds are compared against one another, rather than at the threat-level they are expected to actually combat in the game. You can, for example, build a super-maneuver build monk that only a super-maneuver build fighter can defeat. Does it make the monk brilliant? No, not if they have to combat a huge dragon or giant or ooze.
Furthermore, the assertion has never been that a very well built monk could not be effective, it has been that doing so isn't easy and restricts you to certain options. For Ciretose, who has uber-optimisation skills, a monk is effective. That does not take away the fundamental problems of the class, it just masks them.
The question is not, for another example: 'can a monk build equal a combat rogue build' - it's can a monk and a rogue with a fairly bland selection of feats compete in hit and damage? Face it, a rogue needs only dexterity to function as a rogue; add Weapon Finesse with a decent weapon and you hit just fine with sneak attack goodness thrown in. A monk can only hit slightly better with FoB, for less damage if flanking or more damage if not. Major difference between the two is the rogue can usually do a lot of non-combat stuff the monk cannot.
This is just comparing class features and requirements. We don't need to compare builds, comparing builds built to compete resolves nothing because we are not looking at the best, but at the mediocre, and it's hard to be deliberately mediocre.
My biggest problem with the monk is purely mechanical. It's not the flavor (I've shown before that the monk is just as good making Friar Tuck as it is Jet Li). It's that in comparison to the other classes the monk is mostly lacking. There has been some patch-fix attempts by Paizo in the form of a lot of new feats and several new archtypes that are worthwhile. However, my biggest problem is that the archtypes that are worthwhile basically remove key concepts about the monk (zen archer is barely recognizable as a monk in play, and the same with the sohei), or require more and more feat investments (such as the martial art style feats). The reason I find the feat investment bit a bit troublesome is that monks tend to have to expend lots of feats to make them on par with some guy whose abilities are mostly feat neutral (and thus his feats will be selected to raise himself, rather than to make up for deficiencies).
Pretty much this. To make a monk that is effective in the hands of a novice you have to make them...not a monk, basically.
I always liked this one.Fixed that for you.Where I am from to hate a monk is bad luck. For those in doubt, witness the power of the monk below.
The one just emphasizes what a Monk isn't in game. In real life, the Monk is the premier unarmed martial fighter. You take a knight from the medieval ages (possibly even the hundred year war where so there was a more real threat of fighting), strip them naked, and put them in a life or death fight with a Shaolin Monk, and that Shaolin Monk would destroy him.
You take a fighter, strip him naked, toss him against a monk in life or death fight, and it could probably go either way, depending on the level. And that's largely because the fighter will be unarmored, and therefore, easy to hit.
True. A fighter with a good Strength (say 16 + 2 racial = 18) would have a +5 to hit unarmed at 1st level and deal 1d3+4. With a decent Con (say 14) and Dex (14 again) then we'd have about 12 HP. Base feat on Toughness (+3 HP), Improved Unarmed Strike, and bonus to Two-Weapon Fighting and we'd get 15 HP, +5 to hit with 1 shot, +3/+3 to hit with 2, and AC 12 (completely naked). The monk with the same stats would have +4 to hit with one, +3/+3 to hit with two, deal 1d6+4, and have 13 HP, (toughness, then dodge bonus feat, and one other -- perhaps a saving throw booster) to get AC 12 + wisdom (maybe a +2 as well) for around AC 15.
But it's rare to fight a fighter completely without. Even if the Fighter was wearing a silk garb and armored kilt (no check penalties) he would nearly match the monk in AC and fisticuffs. Overtaking him at higher levels due to weapon training, weapon focus, weapon specialization, etc.
i would suggest a lower level like 4-6 or thereabouts. you are starting the mid levels, but don't have a lot of toys to play with. i would also open up the advanced race guide with the exception of chapter 4. the race point totals of the 3 previous chapters of that book might be a little out of whack, but they are fairly balanced with one another.
I always liked this one.Fixed that for you.Where I am from to hate a monk is bad luck. For those in doubt, witness the power of the monk below.
The one just emphasizes what a Monk isn't in game. In real life, the Monk is the premier unarmed martial fighter. You take a knight from the medieval ages (possibly even the hundred year war where so there was a more real threat of fighting), strip them naked, and put them in a life or death fight with a Shaolin Monk, and that Shaolin Monk would destroy him.
You take a fighter, strip him naked, toss him against a monk in life or death fight, and it could probably go either way, depending on the level. And that's largely because the fighter will be unarmored, and therefore, easy to hit.
True. A fighter with a good Strength (say 16 + 2 racial = 18) would have a +5 to hit unarmed at 1st level and deal 1d3+4. With a decent Con (say 14) and Dex (14 again) then we'd have about 12 HP. Base feat on Toughness (+3 HP), Improved Unarmed Strike, and bonus to Two-Weapon Fighting and we'd get 15 HP, +5 to hit with 1 shot, +3/+3 to hit with 2, and AC 12 (completely naked). The monk with the same stats would have +4 to hit with one, +3/+3 to hit with two, deal 1d6+4, and have 13 HP, (toughness, then dodge bonus feat, and one other -- perhaps a saving throw booster) to get AC 12 + wisdom (maybe a +2 as well) for around AC 15.
But it's rare to fight a fighter completely without. Even if the Fighter was wearing a silk garb and armored kilt (no check penalties) he would nearly match the monk in AC and fisticuffs. Overtaking him at higher levels due to weapon training, weapon focus, weapon specialization, etc.
Need 15 Dex for TWF, but that's just details that can easily be fixed. Take that out, drop in Power Attack, and the Fighter becomes a one hit KO!
The point was, the only time a Monk really has a chance against an equal level combat class, is if you strip them naked, and toss them up against the Monk, while Real Life says otherwise.
i would suggest a lower level like 4-6 or thereabouts. you are starting the mid levels, but don't have a lot of toys to play with. i would also open up the advanced race guide with the exception of chapter 4. the race point totals of the 3 previous chapters of that book might be a little out of whack, but they are fairly balanced with one another.
I actually, would not advise this. The Advanced Race Guide is still new, and not everyone has it. While most people have access to APG, UC, and UM. Plus people are still fleshing out balance issues in the Race Guide. I saw some posts earlier about how Half-elves are going to be the defacto Sorcerer race, because they can have some ability to temporarily expand their spells known by gaining access to the Extra Arcana feat. Though an Elf wizard now also has the ability to spontaneously cast some spells.
i would suggest a lower level like 4-6 or thereabouts. you are starting the mid levels, but don't have a lot of toys to play with. i would also open up the advanced race guide with the exception of chapter 4. the race point totals of the 3 previous chapters of that book might be a little out of whack, but they are fairly balanced with one another.I actually, would not advise this. The Advanced Race Guide is still new, and not everyone has it. While most people have access to APG, UC, and UM. Plus people are still fleshing out balance issues in the Race Guide. I saw some posts earlier about how Half-elves are going to be the defacto Sorcerer race, because they can have some ability to temporarily expand their spells known by gaining access to the Extra Arcana feat. Though an Elf wizard now also has the ability to spontaneously cast some spells.
it would help point out some of the perceieved flaws with the book. time to get started on a Samsarang 4 Elements wizard (admixture evoker) named Patchouli Knowledge and a Tiefling Transmuter Wizard named Koakuma.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
it would help point out some of the perceieved flaws with the book.i would suggest a lower level like 4-6 or thereabouts. you are starting the mid levels, but don't have a lot of toys to play with. i would also open up the advanced race guide with the exception of chapter 4. the race point totals of the 3 previous chapters of that book might be a little out of whack, but they are fairly balanced with one another.I actually, would not advise this. The Advanced Race Guide is still new, and not everyone has it. While most people have access to APG, UC, and UM. Plus people are still fleshing out balance issues in the Race Guide. I saw some posts earlier about how Half-elves are going to be the defacto Sorcerer race, because they can have some ability to temporarily expand their spells known by gaining access to the Extra Arcana feat. Though an Elf wizard now also has the ability to spontaneously cast some spells.
That's not the point. The point Ciretose is making, is a Monk can equal a combat class, such as a Barbarian, at any given level, in terms of party usefulness, not just Combat Ability.
Throwing in possibly broken mechanics from a brand new book will not help matters, only complicate things. If this Build Off were to take place, only books that have been around for awhile, and most of the people are fairly familiar with, should be allowed. The ARG is simply 'too new' to be fair game.
Personally, each time a new books comes out, I don't deem it table legal until after a few months of people on the boards (myself included) to pour over it, break it, and for it to be patched, so I can know what to watch out for, what to allow, and what to straight up garbage bin (Antagonize, I'm looking at you!).
That's not the point. The point Ciretose is making, is a Monk can equal a combat class, such as a Barbarian, at any given level, in terms of party usefulness, not just Combat Ability.
Can? Perhaps. Easily? Not really. If you need crazy archetypes and feats then you are really just proving the point that the core monk is weak. If you are dead set on this, CRB only.
That's not the point. The point Ciretose is making, is a Monk can equal a combat class, such as a Barbarian, at any given level, in terms of party usefulness, not just Combat Ability.Can? Perhaps. Easily? Not really. If you need crazy archetypes and feats then you are really just proving the point that the core monk is weak. If you are dead set on this, CRB only.
I personally do not believe Ciretose at all, and think he's living in a fantasy world. Regardless, Shurkien seems to want to use this pending Build Off to introduce some of the things from the ARG and it's possible flaws. I mentioned that pointing out any flaws of the ARG was not the point of comparing the builds, comparing the builds is the point.
|
|
Inquisitors are probably my current favorite class. Perfect example of a class that looks better built out than in abstract. They get so many little things that add up to big things, and are unbelievably flexible.Good StuffA few months ago I finally sat down and looked at the inquisitor. The class is awesome. I like the ranger a lot also. Yeah the fighter can out damage both of them, but I don't have to go out of my way to be useful in many ooc situations. Bards are pretty sweet also.
PS:Before anyone takes this the wrong way -->I am not anti-fighter though. Sometimes I do just want to hit things, and I still make a fighter work out of combat in some situations, but it requires more effort on my part.
When I first saw them I was not impressed at all, but I was bored one day and they have grown on me since then.
I did get the impression that the barbarian was completely superior to the monk in the other post. I think a 13th level build is good. Most GM's stop at around that point from what I read on the boards.
Level 13: No multiclassing
WBL:140,000 gp, with no more than 33%(46,200) of your wealth going to any one item.
Point Buy: 20 points
Books allowed: CRB, APG, UC, UM.
You get two traits, and no two traits can be in the same category.
Races:Core Only
edit:A 7th level build should be posted also. That is when many builds come into their own.
Perfect, back to post it in a bit.
No, you are not. And that's okay. Others like the monk. And that's okay too.this.
I am a fan of the monk re-skinned as a duelist/pugilist tho to better fit with the remaining classes. (unless doing oriental Adventures in which case they fit fine.)
I suddenly have the urge to play a dwarf monk as a boxer "oi pointy ears outta the way and let a real fighter do the job"
|
|
That's not the point. The point Ciretose is making, is a Monk can equal a combat class, such as a Barbarian, at any given level, in terms of party usefulness, not just Combat Ability.
I don't know if it is true or not. I think it is, so we have an experiment to find out.
My actual hypothesis is some levels will be better than others, but I feel really good about 13th level.
We shall see. Off to work on it, hope someone on the other side is doing the same.
|
|
i would suggest a lower level like 4-6 or thereabouts. you are starting the mid levels, but don't have a lot of toys to play with. i would also open up the advanced race guide with the exception of chapter 4. the race point totals of the 3 previous chapters of that book might be a little out of whack, but they are fairly balanced with one another.I actually, would not advise this. The Advanced Race Guide is still new, and not everyone has it. While most people have access to APG, UC, and UM. Plus people are still fleshing out balance issues in the Race Guide. I saw some posts earlier about how Half-elves are going to be the defacto Sorcerer race, because they can have some ability to temporarily expand their spells known by gaining access to the Extra Arcana feat. Though an Elf wizard now also has the ability to spontaneously cast some spells.
Tels is right, let us not muddy things further.
|
I suddenly have the urge to play a dwarf monk as a boxer "oi pointy ears outta the way and let a real fighter do the job"
Go for it! Orrick is a blast to play.
Go for it! Orrick is a blast to play.
ToZ, do you have a blank version of that e-sheet you could share?