Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game
Pathfinder Society

Pathfinder Beginner Box

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Pathfinder Comics

Pathfinder Legends

How are these classes broken / sucky?


Suggestions/House Rules/Homebrew

51 to 100 of 164 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
John-Andre wrote:

I played 3.5e for a few years, mostly in Living Greyhawk and Living Arcanis. I've played Pathfinder for a few months. I must not be terribly intelligent or bright, because I can't figure out how some classes are inherently better than others. Apparently there are only certain classes which, according to some people, are complete wastes of time, and if someone were to want to play one, then these people would just refuse to play with the offender.

I don't get it. How does the rogue suck? How does the monk suck? Why does the paladin suck? I tried looking in the archives and got overloaded. The posts I read didn't cite reasons.

Please, tell me exactly why, in your opinion, these classes are so bad they shouldn't be included in the game -- and how you would fix them. And please, don't limit it to just the paladin, rogue, and monk. If you think any class is subpar, please, give a shout out -- and be sure to tell us how you would fix this inequity.

Monks have terrible to hit mostly due to expensive magic items (AoMF).

Paladins fall for lying to save an innocent: In PF Paladins fall for any violation, unlike 3.5 Paladins where you fell for gross (as in serious/major) actions.


Ascalaphus wrote:

When I said that paladin alignment was a problem, what I meant was that the constant arguing about it is a drawback to the class. If you and the GM can agree on how the paladin's alignment works, then you're fine. So that's why I think the paladin is an okay class, it just needs an adult talk now and then.

I wonder, if you change the Monk so that you can Flurry as a Standard Action (so never as a Charge), wouldn't that solve most problems? All the mobility powers suddenly work, even Abundant Step, but the feel is way different than a barbarian.

I bolded one of the things humanity as a whole has a hard time doing...

That actually is a simple solution to the monks movement/combat ability conundrum... biggest problem:

TWF Ranger and TWF Rogue: if the Monk can do it why can't we!?

Simplest solution I think would be pounce being a Ki option. Alongside Handwraps/gloves for Magic Weapons.


Style feats were a significant boost to the monk - they gave it cool stuff to do that were pretty unique to the monk.

I think the ability to spend ki to get a full attack (including flurry) as a standard action would be all the class needs for me to be happy with it. Or, better yet, the ability to move up to their speed while doing a full attack, so they could attack multiple opponents along their movement. Getting something like that in the 7-10th level range would help the monk significantly.


The problem with monks and equipment is that it runs counter to the basic concept of the class. Any monk-boosting robes, gloves, tiaras, ballgowns, all feel contrived to shove the monk into a WBL pattern.

I've considered systems where the monk gets more power from empty body slots, but it's awkward.

Ki Pounce is an interesting idea, it does explain why rangers don't get it. Of course, then the ninjas will creep up on you about it...


True... I say Ki should be avoided then... annoying Ninjas...
Though if we make it only effect a flurry then the ninja can't say anything right?

The way I handle the Handwraps is they take up the gloves slot and add magical weapon bonuses to the monks unarmed strike. They cost as a club, take one minute to remove and one minute to put on.

Gloves I handle the same way and are used for my more modern-esque settings.

EDIT: actually we could use Ki Pounce and give it as a Ninja Trick for the Ninja. Then the Rogue can Also acquire it and give the Rogue/Ninja something alongside the Monk.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber
Starbuck_II wrote:
Paladins fall for lying to save an innocent: In PF Paladins fall for any violation, unlike 3.5 Paladins where you fell for gross (as in serious/major) actions.

That's not a problem of the game system, that's a problem of local execution. Then again the Paladin is by it's nature a problematic class as it is one of the few classes that can lose it's powers by a mechanic that's more a matter of adjudication than one of absolute tech.

I think Monte Cook's Champion class is an excellent replacement for the Paladin/Anti-Paladin for those who might want to look at the Arcana Evolved set it comes from.


Roberta Yang wrote:

This post does a good job of explaining why monks are bad at melee - they're worse at actually hitting their targets than even a Rogue (without Sneak Attack) or a Bard in melee.

Ok, let us compare a rogue to a monk. Actually, that’s a great comparo. Both are martial classes, but aren’t tanks.

It’s true that a Monk has MAD, but so does that Rogue. Both need that same CON. Both need SkP, so can’t dump INT (rogue needs more SkP but has more per level). Both need STR. Monk needs WIS far more than Ro, but rogue can’t afford to dump Wis, since Perc is critical. Both need Dex, Rogue moreso, true. Finally- rogues often can’t afford to dump CHA, while Monk can dump like crazy there.

So they are equally MAD.

Now starting your breakdown:
1st a Rogue is up by at least +1 (Nope)
2nd a Rogue can afford masterwork, monk has no masterwork option, Rogue is up +2 (Yep, rogue is up +1)
3rd Rogue can afford a magic weapon, monk can't. (Sure he can. A Monk can buy a temple sword or a kama or whatever he wants. Why not? Oh wait, you’re saying in order to Flurry, a Monk needs TWO magic weapons. That’s just plain not true. A Monk can flurry with one, just like a rogue with TWF and one +1 weapon and a MW wpn can. Half of both their attacks are not magic or +1, true. But note that a Monk gets TWF for free, the rogue has to spend a feat on it. This makes up for the rogue being able to get MW weapons. Ok, so now the Monk has just gotten Weapon focus for free to compare to this rogue getting TWF for free, so the Monk is back up. But actually there are lots of better feats, including the very cool Style feats from UC, which the rogue can’t take. Like Crane, which totally rocks)

4th Monk still can't afford a magic weapon. Rogue just bumped Dex. (Wrong, and Monk can bump a stat also. Note that the rogue with his short sword is still doing D6, the monk has d8 with unarmed attacks, which is a +1 dmg enhancement)
5th Monk can spend literally half their WBL to get a +1. A rogue can have two +1 weapons.
6th Rogue can afford a +2 Dex item, so the rogue is now likely at least +2 for attack over the monk. (The Monk can buy one also. Are all your monks on Vop? And since you say a Dex item boosts the rogue attack, that means the rogue has burned yet another feat on WPn finesse)

7th level rogue can probably afford to have a least one weapon +2. Monk...next bump with cost 15k more than the AoMF they have, so no way.
8th. Still more than half the Monk's WBL to bump, Rogue can have two +2 items for 16k . (Note that Monks unarmed attacks now do D10, rogues still are d6, that’s a +2 dmg enhancement).
This whole argument forgets that a monk can use a single magic weapon just fine- but JUST LIKE THE ROGUE with TWF, can’t make all their attacks with just that one weapon. The argument goes on to assume that the Monk is MAD, but so is the Rogue. And the argument gives the rogue two free feats (whereas it’s the MONK who gets free feats, 3 by 6th level) , and then blithely sez that the Rogue can hit harder, forgetting that the monks unarmed attacks do a LOT more damage.

Now sure- the rogue get Sneak Attack, which can be lethal. But the Monk gets Ki, Fast Movement,(and a host of other coolness, but admittedly the rogue gets cool stuff too). and THREE GOOD SAVES Whoops, that’s two more feats the rogue can to burn to keep up with the Monk.
The two classes are just about equal.

Now, sure- no doubt we still have linear fighters and quadratic wizards in PF. So, neither a rogue or a monk (nor a fighter or a Bbn or a …) can keep up with any full spellcasting class at high levels.


Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Tales Subscriber

About the paladin:
Well if you are talking about the PF paladin, there isn't a mechanical problem with the class, there might be other problems due to alignments and bad group communications as others have mentioned. Now if you were talking about the 3.5 paladin.... yes they sucked.... big time, the reasons were many, some of them are that their smite evil doesn't work on full attacks, being MAD (multiple ability dependant), caster level being paladin level/2, the way lay on hands worked back then.


DrDeth wrote:
Both need STR.

Rogues don't. They can easily grab Weapon Finesse cheaply as a Rogue Talent, so STR doesn't matter for their to-hit, and since most of their damage comes from their massive Sneak Attack bonus, they don't care about the damage penalty.

Monks don't have that giant damage bonus (and can't buy Agile their-own-fists), so they need good STR to actually deal any damage when they do hit, and picking up Weapon Finesse isn't so painless for them. They can't afford to dump STR.

Rogues also don't need as much CHA as Monks need WIS. With Rogues, usually DEX is primary and CHA is secondary; Monks need WIS primary.


gnomersy wrote:
Gauss wrote:

John-Andre: Ultimately Rogues who are specialized in combat require a lot of feats/talents to do the kind of damage that the Martial classes do almost naturally.

The paladin in my group has only a few major combat feats. She really doesn't need that many to really dish it out. (Especially not in CoT.)

Meanwhile, the rogue has to go into a very specific build to even come close to dishing out the same kind of damage. That build is very nearly a single choice build. Oh well. :)

- Gauss

There is that also flanking with Gang up is a good choice if you have enough people who want to be in combat to take advantage of it if that isn't the case ... well things get ugly when you try to flank a mob of ugly nasties the old fashioned way.

There are ways to help the rogue to qualify for Gang Up. A cleric with a longspear can stay out of combat and still threaten. Enlarge him for that 15-20foot reach goodness. Summoned Monsters can provide an extra body to let the Rogue qualify.

It requires a team mentality to help the rogue with Gang-Up. But when that happens...wow.

- Gauss


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Monks and Rogues have trouble hitting stuff. Monks because of all the little broken things with WBL and the inability to make a non-TWF build, rogues because they're fighting with bare 3/4 BAB. Every other 3/4 BAB PC class in the game has either effective 5/6 BAB from free weapon enhancement, divine buffs, scaling stat bonuses, performance, or an eidolon that has one of the above. I would fix both with full BAB. No non-caster should have 3/4 BAB.

Paladins are a great class with a terrible millstone. They generally cannot be played if you don't subscribe to the same school of ethics as your GM. If it weren't for the millstone they are the best melee class in the game, and potentially one of the better archers. If the code is enforced as written by a strict GM they just aren't a PC class. Fallen Paladin is a pretty lame class and for a lot of people starting a Paladin means playing a Fallen Paladin in the long run.

Liberty's Edge

Starbuck_II wrote:
John-Andre wrote:

I played 3.5e for a few years, mostly in Living Greyhawk and Living Arcanis. I've played Pathfinder for a few months. I must not be terribly intelligent or bright, because I can't figure out how some classes are inherently better than others. Apparently there are only certain classes which, according to some people, are complete wastes of time, and if someone were to want to play one, then these people would just refuse to play with the offender.

I don't get it. How does the rogue suck? How does the monk suck? Why does the paladin suck? I tried looking in the archives and got overloaded. The posts I read didn't cite reasons.

Please, tell me exactly why, in your opinion, these classes are so bad they shouldn't be included in the game -- and how you would fix them. And please, don't limit it to just the paladin, rogue, and monk. If you think any class is subpar, please, give a shout out -- and be sure to tell us how you would fix this inequity.

Monks have terrible to hit mostly due to expensive magic items (AoMF).

Paladins fall for lying to save an innocent: In PF Paladins fall for any violation, unlike 3.5 Paladins where you fell for gross (as in serious/major) actions.

Not to turn this into a paladin thread, BUT PALADINS DON"T FALL FOR LYING TO PROTECT AN INNOCENT!!! Does anyone even actually read the paladin code:

"Code of Conduct: A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class features except proficiencies if she ever willingly commits an evil act.

Additionally, a paladin's code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents."

Paladin's only fall for willfully committing evil acts. Everything else is a guideline that should be adhered to, but does not cause instant loss of class abilities if violated.

Also, more on topic, Rogues are great skill monkeys, their biggest downside is that now bards can do everything they do, plus get a sweet spell list.
Monks have fantastic Archetypes, but suffer from the worst Multiple Ability Dependency in the game. Zen Archer monks are so popular because you can actually play them in a 15 point buy system by focusing your resources into wisdom and still being effective. The base monk suffers from being severely deficient in his ability to deal damage at most levels past 5 or so, since his need for the AoMF typically puts him at least +1 behind on his enhancement bonuses compared to another class, plus he probably started with poorer to hit because of having to spread his ability score resources thin.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
SwnyNerdgasm wrote:
Well fighters are sub-par because they have ability to fly, and you can't fight what you can reach.

Tell that to an archer. Every time I ran into a flying BBEG that mocked a fighter of mine, he quickly turned into a flying pin-cushion.

LazarX wrote:
Classes don't suck. It's messageboards that suck if you're going to set your gaming compass by them. As they're generally populated by the vocal or cranky set of the gaming population.

I'm hurt that you didn't mention wannabe game designers, I feel left out now.

Starbuck_II wrote:
Monks have terrible to hit mostly due to expensive magic items (AoMF).

Don't forget MAD and the inability to not-TWF/FoB for better chances to hit.

Starbuck_II wrote:
Paladins fall for lying to save an innocent: In PF Paladins fall for any violation, unlike 3.5 Paladins where you fell for gross (as in serious/major) actions.

Both fell for douche-bag DM's, actually. If your DM is a normal sane human beaing and so are you, there is no problem with plummeting paladins.

SteelDraco wrote:
Style feats were a significant boost to the monk - they gave it cool stuff to do that were pretty unique to the monk.

Except they were not exclusive to the monk, and could work better in conjunction with some other classes features. Best of all, those classes (like an unarmed fighter archetype, who gets proficiency with ALL monk weapons, unlike the monk), can take a two-level dip in the Master of Many Styles monk to get bonus Style feats with no pre-requisites needed, then sneer at the non-MoMS monk who cannot do this, put on their brass knuckles and mash said monk into a pulp.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I guess one question I would have. Is if the monks want to become more specific in a role and do more damage, are they willing to give up some of the things they say aren't useful---like the saves from hell and the ac?

otherwise they get the DPR power of another class and get those saves and AC on top of it. Maybe a trade off? Give them a niche like the rogue has, but in return a drop in ac or saves?

rogue base saves at level 6 are 2,5, 2
monks are 5, 5, 5


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Hakken wrote:

I guess one question I would have. Is if the monks want to become more specific in a role and do more damage, are they willing to give up some of the things they say aren't useful---like the saves from hell and the ac?

otherwise they get the DPR power of another class and get those saves and AC on top of it. Maybe a trade off? Give them a niche like the rogue has, but in return a drop in ac or saves?

MAD fixes this - the monk who wants damage needs strength, which means dropping Dex and Wis and hence AC and other monk abilities. Of course they still suck at hitting their targets, so DPR is still woefully behind the other combat classes, only now they don't function as proper monks either.


Fatespinner wrote:

The best way (in my opinion) to "fix" rogues would be to do any one of three different things:

...

2.) Upgrade Sneak Attack to d10s, but remove the "flanking" caveat. This makes rogues the master of the ambush. Catch a target off-guard or, better yet, blind him? You shank the CRAP out of them. Rogues shouldn't be about fighting fair, they should be about winning. (Spells like greater invisibility would need to be adapted to prevent this from getting seriously out of hand.)

I'm not sure I understand your complaint here--rogues can already sneak attack someone they catch off-guard or blind. Are you under the impression they can only use sneak attack while flanking?


Ascalaphus wrote:
Paladins: I think the central frustrations are about "what does the paladin code have to say about that" and "if it Detects Evil, should/can/must I kill it?" "Why doesn't Detect Evil detect all evil?"

Two of those problems I corrected by replacing Detect Evil with the Inquisitor Class Feature: Stern Gaze. In addition to this, the types that "possess" an evil aura was narrowed down and excluded humanoids, monstrous humanoids, animals, plants, and a couple others based on the idea that detect evil (or good for that matter) only detected those entities that wholly infused with it (such as undead, outsiders, clerics, paladins, antipaladins, etc.)

The code issue I got rid of by writing out a code for each of my deities that sponsor Paladins and their counterparts based on their alignment and goals. The characters were given a copy and expected to use their judgement. For the most part, this is rarely an issue as the language is very specific.

I ditched Detect Evil on the Paladin after one RP session in which I was a player. We'd kill a large demonic-serpent creature and the nest full of eggs remained. One of the players objected to destroying the eggs, saying they were "innocents". After a few minutes of this, I, as the paladin and in my typical smart-mouthed manner grinned and asked the GM, "Do the eggs detect evil?" The GM replied, "The eggs are smashed."

All of us had failed our perception (listen/spot) checks while we argued and the Catfolk Dervish had destroyed them all.

His response out of character? "They detect as scrambled."


Okay, a little clarification here. I didn't mean to say that paladins are sucky and need to be fixed. I meant to say they were a broken class -- overpowered -- and need some sort of nerf to bring them back in line.

From what I can see, the problems with the monk can be solved by transferring reliance on STR and WIS to a reliance on WIS only. Okay, easy enough. Monks should add WIS bonus to all unarmed attack and damage rolls. Done.

The problems with the rogue can be solved possibly by taking a page from 4E and giving the rogue Weapon Finesse as a bonus feat at 1st level. Suddenly rogues are also less MAD. Their sneak attack does plenty of damage; they just suffer from a lack of BAB.

Also, the GM should emphasize more skill use, to help the rogue show off his strengths. Traps should be more deadly and more prevalent, to emphasize the need for Trapfinding within the party.

Paladins should be more MAD, possibly needing a minimum Wisdom score of 10+level to cast spells. Suddenly WIS is no longer a dump stat if Paladins want to cast spells...

See, I'm considering running a Pathfinder campaign using a home-brew setting, and I want to make some changes to the various classes to bring them more into balance so I don't have everyone wanting to play class X. One thing about this campaign: Everyone starts out as prisoners at level 1. No equipment -- well, you start out with loincloths. No animal companions. No eidolons. No bonded animals. You've been prisoners for a long time, so no smuggled resources.

Minimum stats. Up to 20 point base, 15 points minimum, one attribute can be 8 or 9 -- no 7s -- minimum for the rest, 10. Maximum attribute, 16 after racial bonuses. If you were handicapped in one area, you died early into captivity; if you were so far above the norm, the guards broke you in their jealousy.

Two traits to start, plus one for every 2 attribute points you didn't use in attribute assignment.

And later on, magic item availability will be iffy -at best-. It'll be more like 1st edition AD&D. No, sorry Mr. Fighter, you didn't find a magic longsword. Here's a magic warhammer instead.

It seems like the best class to play would be monk, at lower levels -- which I think I'll head off by declaring only one player can be a monk. Otherwise, a party of six monks would make the initial combats too easy.

Yes, spellcasters get screwed. DEAL WITH IT. :D


Paladins are probably the best pure martial, but they're not out of line the way full casters can be and summoners usually are. Even apart from the code there are perfectly viable martial concepts that are better built with other martial classes.

On the subject of your proposed campaign, my advice is don't run that campaign. The only actually viable classes at level 1 without gear are the bard, monk, barbarian, and sorcerer aiming at a melee oriented dragon disciple or eldritch knight. And barbarian and bard are iffy. Some of the other classes may be viable as replacement characters, but fighter is out because of weapon training and the focus/specialization chain. Melee clerics are out because of favored weapon issues. Rogues and Bards suffer under restricted martial proficiencies. It's just a mess and you're breaking everything that isn't broken.

You want to bring classes into balance start by culling the spell lists, not with heavy handed stuff like this.


I think paladins vs. rangers, barbarians and fighters works fairly nicely; each one has some things it's best at while leaving room for the rest. Paladins are very good against undead, but a fighter can be adequate all the time, or try out experimental feat chains.


Detect Evil IIRC only detects strong Evil aura. Not just try f someone is good or evil.

Now a mass murderer might detect as minor or moderate Evil based on by methods. Where as a Cleric of an Evil deity might detect as Major Evil.

As would a Necromancer who constantly maintains an army of undead.

Code is easily solved with the method Da'ath said.

Monks really just need a simple fix.

And what do you mean a Monk isn't proficient with Monk weapons?

Rogues are fine as is.


@John-Andre: I would make absolutely clear o players what they were getting in to, because I would bet that kind of campaign is not what everyone or even most would enjoy. Equally important question is if it is preferred to the more "usual" campaign. And in my opinion this will do exactly what you are trying do with not getting all of the same classes, well not classes probably but same sort of styles mainly unarmed combat comes to mind. This is getting off topic so, I will just say that those rules, themes etc. will have a huge effect so you need to be aware of those. If you feel there might be something you overlooked might want to start another thread for advice. Oh and as after thought Wizards and witches for example might get screwed but spell casters in general no, actually quite the opposite.

Didn't mean to sound preachy, so if I did I apologize.

On the paladin being OP, no not really although in certain campaigns that can happen if each and every single enemy is good for smite.


@John-Andre: So you are suggesting making Paladins into their 3.5 Incarnation...
The Monk fix isn't bad... that might work...
Rogues could use Weapon Finesse...

My setting has some weapons as Finesse quality. This quality is on any Weapon usable with weapon finesse. It allows you to use weapon finesse without the feat. Instead Weapon Finesse is changed to allow DEX to replace STR on Damage rolls.


It depends on the serial killer.
Some have no sense of good or evil from a defect, while some are actually possessed in this game.
If they truly feel murder is an art form, you are stepping into a vary bad grey area.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

The Paladin needs the errata applied to it that have already been introduced. Otherwise he is not overpowered.


Dabbler wrote:
The Paladin needs the errata applied to it that have already been introduced. Otherwise he is not overpowered.

Which is?


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
DrDeth wrote:
Dabbler wrote:
The Paladin needs the errata applied to it that have already been introduced. Otherwise he is not overpowered.
Which is?

Smite does not do double the paladin's class level in bonus damage after the first strike to certain creatures. Once you apply that the paladin becomes a lot less devastating to those creatures.


Azaelas Fayth wrote:

Detect Evil IIRC only detects strong Evil aura. Not just try f someone is good or evil.

Now a mass murderer might detect as minor or moderate Evil based on by methods. Where as a Cleric of an Evil deity might detect as Major Evil.

How long. How long can a killer go without atonement and a cure insanity before they radiate evil. A day, a week, a month, or a year?

After that, the presence of evil is detected no matter the reason.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber
Azaelas Fayth wrote:


And what do you mean a Monk isn't proficient with Monk weapons?

Monks apparently are not automatically proficient with every weapon that has "monk" in it's description.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber
John-Andre wrote:
Yes, spellcasters get screwed. DEAL WITH IT. :D

I deal with it very easily... by finding a less sadistic GM.

Liberty's Edge

LazarX wrote:
Azaelas Fayth wrote:


And what do you mean a Monk isn't proficient with Monk weapons?

Monks apparently are not automatically proficient with every weapon that has "monk" in it's description.

Yeah, this was a little ridiculous. The "Monk" descriptor in weapon properties just means it can be used with monk abilities, but it doesn't add it to the list of weapons monks are proficient with. For example, monks need to spend a feat to use the Monk's Spade, since it's a martial weapon and nothing in the weapon description says monks are proficient with it and it's not in their class proficiency list.


Roberta Yang wrote:

[url=http://paizo.com/forums/dmtz6dlp?Why-we-are-confused-and-perhaps-irritating-Yes#1]

The only thing monks really do are good touch AC and saves, so maybe they're meant to tank - but they have no way of drawing aggro, and with their pitiful offensive abilities, enemies will usually just ignore them.

What the heck? Are we talking about Pathfinder or WoW?


I... don't get it. Smite is only usable once every so often. With the average adventuring day being 3-4 fights each lasting 5-6 rounds apiece, the Paladin only gets to use that wonderful Smite ability a smattering of times before he's out. Also, it adds a little accuracy and his level in damage. Again, one or two times. How is this overpowering?


Roberta Yang wrote:

[url=http://paizo.com/forums/dmtz6dlp?Why-we-are-confused-and-perhaps-irritating-Yes#1]

The only thing monks really do are good touch AC and saves, so maybe they're meant to tank - but they have no way of drawing aggro, and with their pitiful offensive abilities, enemies will usually just ignore them.

With points in diplomacy or intimidation. You can turn the monk in a tank. It's easy, during a battle just use social skills to increase the threat level toward you. (you insult the enemy)


Hmmm. Do we pay attention to the true thing that Roberta Yang said, or do we crucify her (?) for the words she used to say it?

Or course it would be the latter.

If she had said "credible threat" instead of "aggro" it would be no less true.

Shame on you for being so pointlessly hostile. If the game can't draw new players from similar online games, then where are they to come from, hm? Is there some untapped reserve of ideologically pure grognards that we missed, somehow?


Evil Lincoln wrote:

Hmmm. Do we pay attention to the true thing that Roberta Yang said, or do we crucify her (?) for the words she used to say it?

Or course it would be the latter.

If she had said "credible threat" instead of "aggro" it would be no less true.

Shame on you for being so pointlessly hostile. If the game can't draw new players from similar online games, then where are they to come from, hm? Is there some untapped reserve of ideologically pure grognards that we missed, somehow?

You, sir, are right on the money.

Frankly, many online or console RPGs borrowed mechanics, flavor, and so on from D&D (which borrowed from other sources) & other table top/pen and paper games; the fact we can borrow mechanics from them or use them as inspiration is a good thing.


John-Andre wrote:
I... don't get it. Smite is only usable once every so often. With the average adventuring day being 3-4 fights each lasting 5-6 rounds apiece, the Paladin only gets to use that wonderful Smite ability a smattering of times before he's out. Also, it adds a little accuracy and his level in damage. Again, one or two times. How is this overpowering?

In PF, smite lasts until the target is dead. For fights against large numbers of mooks, it's not that great, but when there is one (evil) opponent who is the primary threat, the paladin shines. At four fights/day, the paladin has enough smite for all of them by mid-levels.


Reading more I see "aggro" is a WOW term? I just use it because we say things like that when playing MtG (for cards like Taunting Elf) and it's shorter to write than "forcing opponents to pay attention and attack me instead of my allies". Didn't realize it was a loaded word here; sorry, I'll avoid using it in the future.

Monks don't get Diplomacy as a class skill, and CHA is one of the only stats they currenly can safely dump; if you're saying that they should be using the CHA skills to do their job then that makes them more MAD than ever.

EDIT: Also, I don't know about you, but my mental image of a monk doesn't constantly run around telling people how fat their mothers are.


Gordon the Whale: This is why BBEGs dont work as well against the paladin. Use several creatures instead.

If the paladin is level 10 and I want to use a CR+3 BBEG but wanted to build in a better challenge for the paladin I would probably choose to use two CR+1 guys instead. The battle would have the same CR.

- Gauss


Roberta Yang:

The reason it is a loaded word here is because of D&D 4th edition. D&D 4th edition attempted to court the WoW crowd and many of us have negative opinions of 4th edition. Thus, guilt by association. It isnt right of course, but emotions are not usually right or wrong, they just are.

BTW, insults do not need to be overt. You could consider it the 'come here' hand motion that monks are known to use. Laughing at a weak fighter...etc.

- Gauss

Edit: added the BTW


Gauss wrote:

Roberta Yang:

The reason it is a loaded word here is because of D&D 4th edition. D&D 4th edition attempted to court the WoW crowd and many of us have negative opinions of 4th edition. Thus, guilt by association. It isnt right of course, but emotions are not usually right or wrong, they just are.

- Gauss

Ah, thanks for warning me. (Haven't played 4e either - basically jumped straight from an AD&D1-esque homebrew to PF.)

Gauss wrote:
BTW, insults do not need to be overt. You could consider it the 'come here' hand motion that monks are known to use. Laughing at a weak fighter...etc.

Hmmm, I can see that... but there's still the problem of making Monks spread their attributes even more thinly than they already do.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I don't consider stunning fist weak.
The quivering palm attack makes up for a lot too.


Gauss wrote:

Gordon the Whale: This is why BBEGs dont work as well against the paladin. Use several creatures instead.

If the paladin is level 10 and I want to use a CR+3 BBEG but wanted to build in a better challenge for the paladin I would probably choose to use two CR+1 guys instead. The battle would have the same CR.

- Gauss

I'm not complaining that paladins are overpowered; I'm just explaining to John-Andre why Smite Evil is more useful in PF than 3.5, because it seemed like he hadn't noticed the change. Personally, I think it's cool. Going toe-to-toe with the BBEG is the Paladin's shtick. It gets old if it's every fight, but they should definitely get to do it sometimes.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I fail to see how some people being unable to make a Monk work in combat = the whole class being broken.

I'm sorry that some people aren't familiar enough with the rules or the various options to make a class be exactly what they want it to be, but that still doesn't make the Monk a broken or useless class.

I play my monk, and he rocks. His CMB is awesome, he provokes extra AoO constantly which makes my 2 feats spent on Panther Style and Panther Claw totally worthwhile (meaning I hit way way way more than most people per round) plus with Combat Reflexes and my added movement, I'm usually pretty much standing in the way of the enemy which provokes AoO for me and I hit even more. With his uber AC (25, naked, standing still, then can channel Ki for more) and his awesome Dex, even if I move thru or stand still CR appropriate challenges rarely hit me. With Uber saves, few effects bother me.

Every "issue" that people invent to misinform readers and malign the class are gone, with the possible exception of having so called "system mastery". Well, pardon me for reading the books and knowing how the rules work.

That still doesn't mean the class is broken.

"but but Bomanz wait! even the Dev's think parts of it need to be written!"

I know that too. And trust me...making the Monk better is certainly something I look forward too.

The same way I can't wait till after the fix and people start with all the "OMGZ MUNKZ R OP!!!!11111one1" threads.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Ssalarn wrote:
LazarX wrote:
Azaelas Fayth wrote:


And what do you mean a Monk isn't proficient with Monk weapons?

Monks apparently are not automatically proficient with every weapon that has "monk" in it's description.
Yeah, this was a little ridiculous. The "Monk" descriptor in weapon properties just means it can be used with monk abilities, but it doesn't add it to the list of weapons monks are proficient with. For example, monks need to spend a feat to use the Monk's Spade, since it's a martial weapon and nothing in the weapon description says monks are proficient with it and it's not in their class proficiency list.

Yep, but the unarmed fighter archetype gets proficiency in all of them.

getuliomendes wrote:
Roberta Yang wrote:

[url=http://paizo.com/forums/dmtz6dlp?Why-we-are-confused-and-perhaps-irritating-Yes#1]

The only thing monks really do are good touch AC and saves, so maybe they're meant to tank - but they have no way of drawing aggro, and with their pitiful offensive abilities, enemies will usually just ignore them.
With points in diplomacy or intimidation. You can turn the monk in a tank. It's easy, during a battle just use social skills to increase the threat level toward you. (you insult the enemy)

They ignore you (which any thing can effectively choose to do as Diplomacy and Intimidation are not mind control effects). What do you do now?


I think a sense alignment ability for monks could be good, sense the way. I've seen monk players just do this through sense motive, but it really works with their contemplative fluff.


Dabbler wrote:
Ssalarn wrote:
LazarX wrote:
Azaelas Fayth wrote:


And what do you mean a Monk isn't proficient with Monk weapons?

Monks apparently are not automatically proficient with every weapon that has "monk" in it's description.
Yeah, this was a little ridiculous. The "Monk" descriptor in weapon properties just means it can be used with monk abilities, but it doesn't add it to the list of weapons monks are proficient with. For example, monks need to spend a feat to use the Monk's Spade, since it's a martial weapon and nothing in the weapon description says monks are proficient with it and it's not in their class proficiency list.

Yep, but the unarmed fighter archetype gets proficiency in all of them.

getuliomendes wrote:
Roberta Yang wrote:

[url=http://paizo.com/forums/dmtz6dlp?Why-we-are-confused-and-perhaps-irritating-Yes#1]

The only thing monks really do are good touch AC and saves, so maybe they're meant to tank - but they have no way of drawing aggro, and with their pitiful offensive abilities, enemies will usually just ignore them.
With points in diplomacy or intimidation. You can turn the monk in a tank. It's easy, during a battle just use social skills to increase the threat level toward you. (you insult the enemy)

They ignore you (which any thing can effectively choose to do as Diplomacy and Intimidation are not mind control effects). What do you do now?

If monks are considered an opponent, and they get in the way of their enemies, why would they be ignored? The monsters/enemies don't know the monks abilities by default, they don't know the saves and ac of the tank monk, they don't know that a defensive monk can really slow them down, until it happens.

Monks can make fantastic blockers/tanks, but if we meta-game and have the monsters ignore the defensive characters as if they know everything, then they cannot fulfill the role the player has designed the monk for. Which leads to such characters not having fun, so it is a double rp sing, meta-gaming and diminishing of a players enjoyment.

I've run a few games with defensive monks and defensive melee types, they might not always attract the most heat, but if they put themselves in the way of something, goad with or without special abilities (rp, skills or feats), they will be attacked. Now will they be attacked round after round? That depends how the fight goes. A foe may surrender to them if his bros get taken out, and he has barely touched the monk. It is highly frightening and infuriating to get nowhere attacking an opponent strong in defence, but if a dm uses their knowledge against the players assuming the monsters always make the smart choice from what the dm knows, some annoying situations can develop.

Pardon me, this has come up before.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
3.5 Loyalist wrote:
If monks are considered an opponent, and they get in the way of their enemies, why would they be ignored? The monsters/enemies don't know the monks abilities by default, they don't know the saves and ac of the tank monk, they don't know that a defensive monk can really slow them down, until it happens.

I agree, but that does not mean the foes have never faced a monk before, just that they have never fought THIS monk before. Experienced characters usually face experienced enemies, after all. They can find out very quickly what the monk is capable of.

3.5 Loyalist wrote:
Monks can make fantastic blockers/tanks, but if we meta-game and have the monsters ignore the defensive characters as if they know everything, then they cannot fulfill the role the player has designed the monk for. Which leads to such characters not having fun, so it is a double rp sing, meta-gaming and diminishing of a players enjoyment.

And if we metagame and assume the monsters will continue to attack a foe that plainly cannot hurt them and is just acting as a distraction, we are likewise ruining verisimilitude and spoiling the fun of the game.

It is not the job of the DM to make the character work, that's the player's job.

3.5 Loyalist wrote:

I've run a few games with defensive monks and defensive melee types, they might not always attract the most heat, but if they put themselves in the way of something, goad with or without special abilities (rp, skills or feats), they will be attacked. Now will they be attacked round after round? That depends how the fight goes. A foe may surrender to them if his bros get taken out, and he has barely touched the monk. It is highly frightening and infuriating to get nowhere attacking an opponent strong in defence, but if a dm uses their knowledge against the players assuming the monsters always make the smart choice from what the dm knows, some annoying situations can develop.

Pardon me, this has come up before.

Yes it has, and it is possible for a strongly defensive character to disrupt an enemy, but not for long. When the monk is the only target, it can work. When the enemy have never run into a monk before, it can work briefly. But ultimately enemies will end up concentrating on the targets that can hurt them.

Most importantly, being able to insult your enemy is not going to sway this one jot.


Why do people think a Monk can't deal damage?

My monk player is a excellent damage dealer. Especially if he tag-teams an enemy with another character.

I have seen the Monk flank with a TWF Ranger. The Monk out damaged the Ranger. And the Ranger had maxed out their Favored Enemy Bonuses against this type of enemy.

Also of Note: this Monk is built to be a defender. He even took Antagonize. And has used it to great effect.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Azaelas Fayth wrote:

Why do people think a Monk can't deal damage?

My monk player is a excellent damage dealer. Especially if he tag-teams an enemy with another character.

I have seen the Monk flank with a TWF Ranger. The Monk out damaged the Ranger. And the Ranger had maxed out their Favored Enemy Bonuses against this type of enemy.

Also of Note: this Monk is built to be a defender. He even took Antagonize. And has used it to great effect.

I'd love to see this build, my experience has been that core monks have two fundamental problems: hitting things and getting through DR. Even will all their attacks actually inflicting DPR is a tough call because of lower chances to hit than other martials and inability to get through DR.

51 to 100 of 164 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Publishing / Pathfinder® / Pathfinder RPG / Suggestions/House Rules/Homebrew / How are these classes broken / sucky? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.