Well, if the monk gets in the way, the enemies have to deal with him/her, or ignore them. I am meaning physically actually gets in their way. Rushes up, tries to turtle, is waiting to unleash flurries, that sort of thing.

I know what you mean, but if they flurry and nothing connects, or connects and does little damage, while the guy with the BIG sword is chopping people in two...well...let's just say you do not have to be a genius.

I don't think they will get ignored.

Well they might not, at first. How long does it take to notice that the unarmed guy is just an annoyance?

To enter a discussion of appearance, the monk could also not look like a monk, which may also attract attention. Good old illusions/glamors/disguises.

This relies on other party members 'buffing' the monk, and requires preparation. In fact, if you think about it, the tactic could be done with just the spell and be as effective.

At the end of the day, "drawing aggro" is a viable tactic only if you can get the majority of things to attack you the majority of the time. I can see the monk managing this some of the time against a few foes. I cannot see them achieving this all of the time.

To sum it up another way, what you are suggesting the monk could be achieving is a kind of battlefield control, where they render foes ineffective against the rest of the party by absorbing their actions. This is only a viable tactic that 'pulls weight' if you can either tie down a lot of foes for a suitable duration, or one powerful foe for a likewise suitable duration.

Now for a monk tying down a lot of foes is not easy. You can maybe so it to mooks with maneuivers, but that's about it. Tying down a single foe means doing enough damage or sufficient effects that he cannot ignore you, and I think we are agreed that the monk can't manage that either.

Being able to draw one's fair share of the fire for one or two rounds of a combat is not a viable contribution, because everybody in the party is doing that and doing more besides.

Well, if the monk gets in the way, the enemies have to deal with him/her, or ignore them. I am meaning physically actually gets in their way. Rushes up, tries to turtle, is waiting to unleash flurries, that sort of thing. I don't think they will get ignored. To enter a discussion of appearance, the monk could also not look like a monk, which may also attract attention. Good old illusions/glamors/disguises.

Sad thing is, it's actually really not that hard to simply move away from the monk. The worst case scenario is the monk gets an attack of opportunity (assuming the monk did not take a total defense in anticipation of whacking you), and since AoOs are not using the monk's pretend BAB, and monks have issues hitting as well as others, it's not a big deal for many foes who want to get into melee with your PCs. :\

3.5 Loyalist wrote:

Well, if the monk gets in the way, the enemies have to deal with him/her, or ignore them. I am meaning physically actually gets in their way. Rushes up, tries to turtle, is waiting to unleash flurries, that sort of thing.

I know what you mean, but if they flurry and nothing connects, or connects and does little damage, while the guy with the BIG sword is chopping people in two...well...let's just say you do not have to be a genius.

3.5 Loyalist wrote:

I don't think they will get ignored.

Well they might not, at first. How long does it take to notice that the unarmed guy is just an annoyance?

3.5 Loyalist wrote:

To enter a discussion of appearance, the monk could also not look like a monk, which may also attract attention. Good old illusions/glamors/disguises.

This relies on other party members 'buffing' the monk, and requires preparation. In fact, if you think about it, the tactic could be done with just the spell and be as effective.

At the end of the day, "drawing aggro" is a viable tactic only if you can get the majority of things to attack you the majority of the time. I can see the monk managing this some of the time against a few foes. I cannot see them achieving this all of the time.

To sum it up another way, what you are suggesting the monk could be achieving is a kind of battlefield control, where they render foes ineffective against the rest of the party by absorbing their actions. This is only a viable tactic that 'pulls weight' if you can either tie down a lot of foes for a suitable duration, or one powerful foe for a likewise suitable duration.

Now for a monk tying down a lot of foes is not easy. You can maybe so it to mooks with maneuivers, but that's about it. Tying down a single foe means doing enough damage or sufficient effects that he cannot ignore you, and I think we are agreed that the monk can't manage that either.

Being able to draw one's fair share of the fire for one or two rounds of a combat is not a...

Pretty much everything Dabbler has said here is what I was trying to say. Good show Master Dabbler. :)

Relax, he was just disagreeing with you, but also seeing some of your points.

Thanks.

3.5 Loyalist wrote:

Relax, he was just disagreeing with you, but also seeing some of your points.

I am not upset. I just bolded it so I would not have to keep repeating it.

You can repeat it as frequently or as infrequently as you care to, I've read it carefully and with consideration every time you've written it and I don't agree with it any more in bold then I did in the plain font. I respect your opinion, I'm just adding mine into the mix.

Thread needs more Ciretose anyway.

Hopefully you guys will forgive me for airing out sordid details from my checkered past, but I have a situation that ties in to what I'm trying to say beautifully.

At one time I was attacked by three guys. One had a gun, one had a knife and one had a can of mace. The guy with the gun was the biggest threat if we "run the numbers", right? But I didn't hit him. In retrospect, maybe that was a good tactical choice, if a bit of a gamble, because there was a pretty good chance he was bluffing and wasn't willing to use it. But in the heat of the moment, I wasn't thinking all of that. My mind was in chaos. I hit the guy with the knife. I didn't get stabbed or shot, I got maced and robbed and left in the desert. The truth is in a fight you don't automatically successfully appraise the greatest threat and ignore the guy that is statistically harming you less with each blow. There's a million factors. Sometimes you hit the guy that's in front of you just because he's in front of you. Sometimes you go for the guy that taunted you. Sometimes you're embarrassed that you missed so you try to hit the guy that's hard to hit again. Sometimes you go for the scrawny guy because you're afraid and at least you think you can take him.

Now I don't expect anyone to take all of this into account perfectly when playing a role-playing game. It's just a game. But you can't tell me you are running every monster and npc as living breathing entities if they all adhere to the model "assess and single out greatest threat, ignore other combatants."

I would have gone for the guy with Blindness/Deafness wan. Yes the gun can hurt, but he provokes of he attempts to use as it is a ranged weapon and takes a -4 hit from youbeing in melee.

The stabbing guy might hurt, but more likely if you blind.

So gank the macer, steal his mace, use on stabber, use stabby device on gun guy.

wraithstrike wrote:

3.5 Loyalist wrote:

Relax, he was just disagreeing with you, but also seeing some of your points.

I am not upset. I just bolded it so I would not have to keep repeating it.

You can repeat it as frequently or as infrequently as you care to, I've read it carefully and with consideration every time you've written it and I don't agree with it any more in bold then I did in the plain font. I respect your opinion, I'm just adding mine into the mix.

You made it sound like I was saying all GM's play that way, and I never said that. That is why I bolded. You also keep saying it is a rules discussion which also led me to believe you were misreading what I was saying. I think 3.5 Loyalist assumed I was being snarky when I defined what a rule was. That is incorrect. I only defined it to explain why this was not a rules discussion.

edit:Still not angry.....I guess I do need an angry symbol though so 3.5 Loyalist won't jump to any more conclusions. My angry symbol is the "&&". That should settle that. :)

3.5 Loyalist wrote:

Well, if the monk gets in the way, the enemies have to deal with him/her, or ignore them. I am meaning physically actually gets in their way. Rushes up, tries to turtle, is waiting to unleash flurries, that sort of thing. I don't think they will get ignored. To enter a discussion of appearance, the monk could also not look like a monk, which may also attract attention. Good old illusions/glamors/disguises.

Sad thing is, it's actually really not that hard to simply move away from the monk. The worst case scenario is the monk gets an attack of opportunity (assuming the monk did not take a total defense in anticipation of whacking you), and since AoOs are not using the monk's pretend BAB, and monks have issues hitting as well as others, it's not a big deal for many foes who want to get into melee with your PCs. :\

But that is more or less what grimmy is aguing against. how the enemy would know that the monk only have medium BAB for AoO?

Ashiel wrote:

3.5 Loyalist wrote:

Well, if the monk gets in the way, the enemies have to deal with him/her, or ignore them. I am meaning physically actually gets in their way. Rushes up, tries to turtle, is waiting to unleash flurries, that sort of thing. I don't think they will get ignored. To enter a discussion of appearance, the monk could also not look like a monk, which may also attract attention. Good old illusions/glamors/disguises.

Sad thing is, it's actually really not that hard to simply move away from the monk. The worst case scenario is the monk gets an attack of opportunity (assuming the monk did not take a total defense in anticipation of whacking you), and since AoOs are not using the monk's pretend BAB, and monks have issues hitting as well as others, it's not a big deal for many foes who want to get into melee with your PCs. :\

But that is more or less what grimmy is aguing against. how the enemy would know that the monk only have medium BAB for AoO?

Once again we are not saying the enemy knows the monk only has a BAB. We are saying the monk only is less likely to do something that compares to what the other party members do if he is built for defense. We do understand that the monk might crit, and actually do substantial damage, but that is a corner case, and a defensive monk can't depend on that to draw attention without a GM metagaming.

After the monk hits for 15 points of damage, the barbarian hits for 47, the wizard turns someone to stone, and the cleric does starts casting whatever spell he cast the monk drops to the bottom of the threat list.

PS:The wizard turning someone to stone was just an example. The point of that second paragraph is that in most cases the monk is the least likely to do anything that makes him look like the primary threat.

Ashiel wrote:

3.5 Loyalist wrote:

Well, if the monk gets in the way, the enemies have to deal with him/her, or ignore them. I am meaning physically actually gets in their way. Rushes up, tries to turtle, is waiting to unleash flurries, that sort of thing. I don't think they will get ignored. To enter a discussion of appearance, the monk could also not look like a monk, which may also attract attention. Good old illusions/glamors/disguises.

Sad thing is, it's actually really not that hard to simply move away from the monk. The worst case scenario is the monk gets an attack of opportunity (assuming the monk did not take a total defense in anticipation of whacking you), and since AoOs are not using the monk's pretend BAB, and monks have issues hitting as well as others, it's not a big deal for many foes who want to get into melee with your PCs. :\

But that is more or less what grimmy is aguing against. how the enemy would know that the monk only have medium BAB for AoO?

I would assume them to judge on the basis of:

Has this person hit me? How many times did they try? Did it hurt?

If a monk has made five attempts at hitting, hit only once and done little damage, then the conclusion is that they are not much of a threat. If they attacked many times and did not hit at all, then it's perfectly safe to retreat from them without a full withdrawal because they probably won't hit you again regardless of their BAB.

Grimmy wrote:

i dont expect anyone to take all of this into account perfectly when playing a role-playing game. It's just a game. But you can't tell me you are running every monster and npc as living breathing entities if they all adhere to the model "assess and single out greatest threat, ignore other combatants."

I would have gone for the guy with Blindness/Deafness wan. Yes the gun can hurt, but he provokes of he attempts to use as it is a ranged weapon and takes a -4 hit from youbeing in melee.

The stabbing guy might hurt, but more likely if you blind.

So gank the macer, steal his mace, use on stabber, use stabby device on gun guy.

besides being a humerous post, a trained individual would have controlled the gun while making distance between the knife fighter, ironiaclly the macer would have maced all parties involved if he attempted to mace you in the initail disarming of the gun.

that is a no win situation, but you should be trained enough to recognize the proper threats in proper order. a normal person with no training wouldnt know what to do, and grimmy proved that. but someone who trains in fighting, or is military trained will know what to do.

i would consider the monk the 4th guy wearing the bullet proof vest with no weapon to speak of, you know the guy who you never noticed lol.

So as far as giving a monk something special for them, what would be the effect of making a Flurry a standard action? This would let you fill the "highly mobile troubleshooter" niche.

It would, but most of us do not regard that as being the major problem. For me, and others, and from my experiences in play and analysing the mechanics, the monk as a combat class has three big issues:

With that said how would you suggest to test a class in such as way as to make sure to not include a GM's desire to fudge tactics or dice so the test has no bias for aggressive or passive GM, and is therefore as neutral toward playstyle as possible?

You could always divide players into two groups, have one group make a party with a monk, have the other make a party without a monk, and then have the two parties fight one another. For more data points, add more groups and more battles.

Except that parties are often confronted not by other parties but by monsters...

So as far as giving a monk something special for them, what would be the effect of making a Flurry a standard action? This would let you fill the "highly mobile troubleshooter" niche.

I would be hesitant to allow full-on flurry as a standard action, mainly because of the possibility of it being overpowered if the monk receives some sort of boost in its attack numbers. If you added the ability to do a full flurry on the move but didn't address the other core problems, you still have the issue with flurry of misses. However, one suggestion that I have made in this regard to be able to spend 1 point of ki as a swift action to gain an additional attack (at the highest attack bonus) when moving 10' or more, when charging, or when using the Spring Attack feat.

But Dabbler is quite correct: the main problem with the monk is hitting (#1) and MAD (#2) and getting through DR (#3).

A weapons training like bonus on attack rolls only (with unarmed strikes and special monk weapons) would for the most part take care of issue #1. If the monk had a class feature allowing him to use Wisdom or Dexterity for damage instead of strength, that would go a long way in taking care of issue #2. And for #3? Either make ki strike give unarmed strike an actual enhancement bonus (scaling in level) OR add Penetrating Strike to the 10th level monk bonus feats and Greater Penetrating Strike as a 14th level monk bonus feat.

MA

Many of you have shown that the monk can't reliably be expected to achieve a kind of battlefield control by drawing agro. I respect that analysis, but that's not really what I was responding to.

I didn't have anyone in particular in mind when I commented, not ashiel, not wraithstrike. I just see something pop up from time to time that looks something like this:

Someone says: "Monk has pretty nice defenses." Someone else almost always chime in "So what it's not like anyone will ever target them with anything."

That's not realistic. Adventuring is a dangerous profession, PC's get attacked all the time, good defenses are nice to have. That's all I'm saying.

It's not that they'll never be attacked while adventuring. It's more that a character built around defenses (who doesn't have a respectable ability to threaten their opponents in a meaningful way) will quickly be recognized as a 'non-threat' on the field and will be ignored in favor of more threatening targets.

Earlier when wraith started bolding things I decided to give it a rest and go back to reading my new Rappan Athuk pdf. I was only reading for 15-20 minutes when I got to this

LEUCROTTAS (6)
XP 1,600
hp 57 (Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Bestiary 2, “Leucrotta”)
Tactics: These beasts hit and run, avoiding heavily armored opponents until all others have been dealt with.

It didn't stop there. On every page I found waves of indiscriminately attacking mindless undead, vermin, traps and environmental hazards that force saves.

I'm not saying monk is the best class to take into Rappan Athuk, but this can't be the only adventure where he is getting targeted.

Basically, the high defense guy gets poked to death with spears or shot to death with arrows after all the threats on the battlefield have been dealt with.

Defense is good . . . but it doesn't win on the battlefield. In Pathfinder, you need enough defense to survive until you can kill your target; anything else is gravy. The problem with the monk is, if his defense is high, he cannot deal with many CR-appropriate targets. And conversely, if he focuses on strength, hitting, and damage, his defense is going to be low, perhaps to the point where he cannot survive a single round of attacks from CR-appropriate threats.

MA

Ashiel wrote:

3.5 Loyalist wrote:

Well, if the monk gets in the way, the enemies have to deal with him/her, or ignore them. I am meaning physically actually gets in their way. Rushes up, tries to turtle, is waiting to unleash flurries, that sort of thing. I don't think they will get ignored. To enter a discussion of appearance, the monk could also not look like a monk, which may also attract attention. Good old illusions/glamors/disguises.

Sad thing is, it's actually really not that hard to simply move away from the monk. The worst case scenario is the monk gets an attack of opportunity (assuming the monk did not take a total defense in anticipation of whacking you), and since AoOs are not using the monk's pretend BAB, and monks have issues hitting as well as others, it's not a big deal for many foes who want to get into melee with your PCs. :\

But that is more or less what grimmy is aguing against. how the enemy would know that the monk only have medium BAB for AoO?

NPCs and intelligent monsters live in the setting. They are rarely completely without either experience or education.

Monks don't wear armor. Every class that is a threat in melee wears armor except the kapenia dancer and spire defender. The Kapenia dancer is both regional and linked to a very distinctive non-monk weapon. The spire defender is linked to a small group of isolationist elves. The other unarmored archetypes I'm aware of (Kensai and Geisha) are eastern and therefore will always have access to the 0% ASF eastern armors.

The people who don't wear armor are full arcanists, commoners, experts, adepts, monks, and maybe strongly caster specced full divine casters. Of these the only ones that might go unarmed or use a monk weapon are pretty much just the NPC classes and maybe the full arcanists.

If an opponent has never heard of a monk then an unarmored person who tries to get in their face would be presumed to be a commoner or expert looking for martyrdom. Ignoring such a person is only reasonable.

Earlier when wraith started bolding things I decided to give it a rest and go back to reading my new Rappan Athuk pdf. I was only reading for 15-20 minutes when I got to this

Area 9-5 Leucrotta Caves wrote:

LEUCROTTAS (6)
XP 1,600
hp 57 (Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Bestiary 2, “Leucrotta”)
Tactics: These beasts hit and run, avoiding heavily armored opponents until all others have been dealt with.

It didn't stop there. On every page I found waves of indiscriminately attacking mindless undead, vermin, traps and environmental hazards that force saves.

I'm not saying monk is the best class to take into Rappan Athuk, but this can't be the only adventure where he is getting targeted.

So in this case, we have opponents who ignore heavy armor wearers... which is some fighters, paladins, cavaliers, and melee clerics who take the armor proficiency?

If the argument is that monks are great defensively but not so hot offensively, then wouldn't the group benefit from having nearly any other melee character (who doesn't wear heavy armor) in these situations? I mean, the monk may survive, but he's relying on the other players to not only survive and kill thier opponents, but then to come over and finish off the monk's attackers, too?

Because you need to remove the enemy from battle as quickly as possible in a turn based game, because every turn the enemy is alive and active, they can do bad things to you that reduce your resources.

A player who can't contribute effectively to this removal is a lagging.

I didn't have anyone in particular in mind when I commented, not ashiel, not wraithstrike. I just see something pop up from time to time that looks something like this:

Someone says: "Monk has pretty nice defenses." Someone else almost always chime in "So what it's not like anyone will ever target them with anything."

That's not realistic. Adventuring is a dangerous profession, PC's get attacked all the time, good defenses are nice to have. That's all I'm saying.

They are nice, and the monk's defences, if he concentrates on them, are very good. But they aren't awesome. Paladin defences are awesome, they end up with better AC and saves as good if not better, and immunities, and the ability to annul various conditions and hit point damage, and more hit points. Then don't me started on paladin attacks...

The monk does get a nice touch AC. He gets a poor flat-footed AC in compensation for this.

My experience of play is also that as you go to higher levels, the monk's defences get progressively less effective. Right now I have a monk in a party about to start a boss-fight with a Horned Devil. It's a toughie at CR+4 on us. Now the other PCs all have a means of doing something:

Paladin - smitting with his +4 sword, he will dish serious damage ignoring DR, and has a reasonable chance of hitting. Smiting he'll attack at +23 and dish out 1d8+21+2d6. His AC of 34 is going to help him a lot, too.
Oracle - OK, she has to bypass SR, but she has a good chance of doing so with Spell Penetration, and hurting it with chain lightning and holy smite.
Magus - he also has Spell Penetration, and he can enhance his +3 rapier to +5 and hit at +21 for 1d6+13 damage that will bypass DR. He only has an AC of 30, though.
Ranger - has no means of bypassing DR, but with Clustered Shots he can overwhelm it. With +23 to hit with his bow he'll hit a couple of times a round at least.
Monk (thats' me) - well I have +20 to hit on a flurry, which is pretty good, but my 2d6+5 hasn't much chance of getting through DR for anything significant, so odds of hitting and doing damage and getting stunning fist in are small. I could try my maneuvers, but they will only work on a natural 20. With an AC 0f 31, I do not think I will avoid taking damage (it's main attack needs a 5 to hit me). Probably a lot of it. The only advantage I have is that if the devil throws down a fireball, I probably will shrug it off. If.

Of all of us, I have the least chance of achieving anything significant in this encounter. About the only meaningful contribution I can make is get behind the devil and provide flanking. I would not be surprised if the entire combat passes by with me inflicting no damage and no successful maneuvers.

If the argument is that monks are great defensively but not so hot offensively, then wouldn't the group benefit from having nearly any other melee character (who doesn't wear heavy armor) in these situations? I mean, the monk may survive, but he's relying on the other players to not only survive and kill thier opponents, but then to come over and finish off the monk's attackers, too?

Pretty much. Every other character with good defences also has a means of attacking that is effective and not situational - the monk doesn't unless he gimps his AC.

Many of you have shown that the monk can't reliably be expected to achieve a kind of battlefield control by drawing agro. I respect that analysis, but that's not really what I was responding to.

I didn't have anyone in particular in mind when I commented, not ashiel, not wraithstrike. I just see something pop up from time to time that looks something like this:

Someone says: "Monk has pretty nice defenses." Someone else almost always chime in "So what it's not like anyone will ever target them with anything."

That's not realistic. Adventuring is a dangerous profession, PC's get attacked all the time, good defenses are nice to have. That's all I'm saying.

I like the monk conceptually. My biggest woe concerning the monk is that to get those "pretty nice defenses" they have to give up most anything resembling level-appropriate offense. That makes me a sad panda. :(

No other class in the game has to make that sacrifice, nor can be defensive without being capable at offense either. Even the poor Fighter who is almost entirely offense oriented with terrible class-based defenses gets enough offense through his class that he can invest in some defensive gears instead (if your GM is reasonable with the item creation rules, then fighters are well served with investing their money into protections from mind control, energy resistances, and short duration defenses against CC effects and energy drain).

========================================================================

But that is more or less what grimmy is aguing against. how the enemy would know that the monk only have medium BAB for AoO?

Well depending on how much information we are allowing PCs/NPCs, then there should be little reason to ever assume that enemies can reasonably hit you. Most warrior folk have bonuses to hit around +3-5. Those with higher modifiers tend to be elite, exceptional individuals. Now to a guy with AC 27 (like the 8th level Ranger mentioned before, who is in himself an elite and exceptional individual) moving away should be trivial unless he is also fighting an elite and exceptional individual.

So assuming that no one has any signs that they are elite and exceptional (barring masterwork+ gear, reputation, stance, and so forth) then there is actually little reason to assume ANYONE can hit you effectively regardless of class, because if we're being reasonable the chances that everyone is a Navy Seal+ warrior is pretty low (it is for this reason that I tend to use lots of low-CR enemies en mass instead of lots of super-hero NPCs). So then it doesn't matter if the NPC is fighting any other martial class or a Monk, they're gonna give them a chance. The catch is the monk is statistically going to fail given that chance, whereas a real martial will punish them for giving that chance.

That's assuming a world where neither NPCs nor PCs have any sort of clues concerning their opponents, no foreknowledge of their capabilities, and no way of discovering or even gleaning a hint as to their magical or martial effectiveness beyond witnessing it first hand on the end of heir staff or sword.

Now another common thing is many GMs assume that a certain amount of sizing up can be done. In fact, many GMs will actually add a descriptive element to their introductions of NPCs that hint at their capabilities, or describe action in ways that allow someone to change or adjust their tactics to the situation in a way that feels more organic. More real, effectively. Some (including myself) will go so far as to merge mechanical and narratives together so that the players can learn from the experience. For example:

"The orc warrior is angered by Oswald and wants to tear him to pieces. He lunges at Oswald with mighty hay-maker swings with his axe, taking high risk shots that will devastate what they connect with! The orc declares Power Attack this turn, so his attacks will be less accurate but much stronger until his next turn."

Whereas then the players may attempt to change their tactics. Oswald might attempt to total defense and evade the orc to get to cover or concealment. One of the other PCs might realize Oswald is in deep poo and rush over to assist him against the aggro-heavy orc, or the druid might run up and cast barkskin on Oswald, hoping that the extra AC will curb the destructive power of the orc's strikes into glancing blows.

In this sort of environment, it would not be uncommon for opponents who are clearly inferior to you in fighting skill (IE - have a BAB that is suckier) to display that inferiority through the narrative. Given that many of us who prefer this style of gameplay prefer it because it is more interesting and less boring than "Nameless face guy hits you for X damage this round. I'd tell you more, but that could reveal whether it was just a lucky shot, or an intently placed hit, and you're not allowed to know anything that would help you decide how to change your tactics."

However, as others point out, this will only slow the inevitable. After an NPC or PC have displayed their lack of threat, it is only natural that they will go for someone who is a threat.

They are nice, and the monk's defences, if he concentrates on them, are very good. But they aren't awesome. Paladin defences are awesome, they end up with better AC and saves as good if not better, and immunities, and the ability to annul various conditions and hit point damage, and more hit points. Then don't me started on paladin attacks...

The monk does get a nice touch AC. He gets a poor flat-footed AC in compensation for this.

My experience of play is also that as you go to higher levels, the monk's defences get progressively less effective. Right now I have a monk in a party about to start a boss-fight with a Horned Devil. It's a toughie at CR+4 on us. Now the other PCs all have a means of doing something:

Paladin - smitting with his +4 sword, he will dish serious damage ignoring DR, and has a reasonable chance of hitting. Smiting he'll attack at +23 and dish out 1d8+21+2d6. His AC of 34 is going to help him a lot, too.
Oracle - OK, she has to bypass SR, but she has a good chance of doing so with Spell Penetration, and hurting it with chain lightning and holy smite.
Magus - he also has Spell Penetration, and he can enhance his +3 rapier to +5 and hit at +21 for 1d6+13 damage that will bypass DR. He only has an AC of 30, though.
Ranger - has no means of bypassing DR, but with Clustered Shots he can overwhelm it. With +23 to hit with his bow he'll hit a couple of times a round at least.
Monk (thats' me) - well I have +20 to hit on a flurry, which is pretty good, but my 2d6+5 hasn't much chance of getting through DR for anything significant, so odds of hitting and doing damage and getting stunning fist in are small. I could try my maneuvers, but they will only work on a natural 20. With an AC 0f 31, I do not think I will avoid taking damage (it's main attack needs a 5 to hit me). Probably a lot of it. The only advantage I have is that if the devil throws down a fireball, I probably will shrug it off. If.

Of all of us, I have the least chance of achieving anything significant in this encounter. About the only meaningful contribution I can make is get behind the devil and provide flanking. I would not be surprised if the entire combat passes by with me inflicting no damage and no successful maneuvers.

Every other character with good defences also has a means of attacking that is effective and not situational - the monk doesn't unless he gimps his AC.

Dabbler is right. Monk AC taps out around the same AC that a sword & board user will have. But the sword & board user has more offense to bring to the table. Without even assuming shield bashing, or anything overly special, class features of real martials can give them around +10 to hit and damage when they need it (fighters can comfortably mount a +8 to hit and +10 to damage on all attacks, while rangers have +10/+10 via instant enemy, and Paladins can pull +10/+20 vs evil enemies). Just counting a +5 weapon (modest by 20th level), +20 BAB, and their +8 or better to hit, and a +10 Strength, that is around +43 or better to hit on their main attack with no feats or buffs yet. Each attack will deal around 4.5 + 10 + 10 +5 or 1d8+25, before buffs or Power Attack. This is assuming shield and no special buffs or anything.

Martials in Pathfinder are cool. XD

Many of you have shown that the monk can't reliably be expected to achieve a kind of battlefield control by drawing agro. I respect that analysis, but that's not really what I was responding to.

I didn't have anyone in particular in mind when I commented, not ashiel, not wraithstrike. I just see something pop up from time to time that looks something like this:

Someone says: "Monk has pretty nice defenses." Someone else almost always chime in "So what it's not like anyone will ever target them with anything."

That's not realistic. Adventuring is a dangerous profession, PC's get attacked all the time, good defenses are nice to have. That's all I'm saying.

I said earlier that we know the monk will get attacked. If your argument was that the monk will get attacked sooner or later then we agree. We also agree that the monk has nice defenses. :)

Earlier when wraith started bolding things I decided to give it a rest and go back to reading my new Rappan Athuk pdf. I was only reading for 15-20 minutes when I got to this

Area 9-5 Leucrotta Caves wrote:

LEUCROTTAS (6)
XP 1,600
hp 57 (Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Bestiary 2, “Leucrotta”)
Tactics: These beasts hit and run, avoiding heavily armored opponents until all others have been dealt with.

It didn't stop there. On every page I found waves of indiscriminately attacking mindless undead, vermin, traps and environmental hazards that force saves.

I'm not saying monk is the best class to take into Rappan Athuk, but this can't be the only adventure where he is getting targeted.

If the entire dungeon is like that, then it is one of the few with primarily mindless opponents.

I am not yelling when I am bolding. I am only trying to emphasize a point. :)

Grimmy wrote:

Area 9-5 Leucrotta Caves wrote:

LEUCROTTAS (6)

Tactics: These beasts hit and run, avoiding heavily armored opponents until all others have been dealt with.

It didn't stop there. On every page I found waves of indiscriminately attacking mindless undead, vermin, traps and environmental hazards that force saves.

I'm not saying monk is the best class to take into Rappan Athuk, but this can't be the only adventure where he is getting targeted.

If the entire dungeon is like that, then it is one of the few with primarily mindless opponents.

I am not yelling when I am bolding. I am only trying to emphasize a point. :)

Leucrotta are "intelligent and cruel" according to their description and they have Int 11, so they are far from mindless (actually more intelligent than many PCs who use Int as a dump stat... :-).

Mindless undead on the other hand are mindless indeed :-)

Well in the case of the Leucrotta, it would hit the monk and the arcane casters at the same priority. Probably one of the few times the monk would be targeted in preference. Thing is, the monk's flat-footed AC is not great, so if it gets the drop on him he really is quite vulnerable. This isn't playing to the monk's strengths. He's just less vulnerable than the other people targeted, by a bit.

I really wonder where Paizo will fall on this. 3.5 always kept a divide between monks and fighter/barb/rangers/pallies in the capacity to hit.

Will paizo stick it out, make them more like a variant fighter, some type of ki using barbarian or take an entirely new approach? I'm hoping for novelty.

Monks already have novelty, I'm hoping for functionality - that is, that whatever changes Paizo make, they make the monk able to function.

wraithstrike wrote:

Grimmy wrote:

Area 9-5 Leucrotta Caves wrote:

LEUCROTTAS (6)

Tactics: These beasts hit and run, avoiding heavily armored opponents until all others have been dealt with.

It didn't stop there. On every page I found waves of indiscriminately attacking mindless undead, vermin, traps and environmental hazards that force saves.

I'm not saying monk is the best class to take into Rappan Athuk, but this can't be the only adventure where he is getting targeted.

If the entire dungeon is like that, then it is one of the few with primarily mindless opponents.

I am not yelling when I am bolding. I am only trying to emphasize a point. :)

Leucrotta are "intelligent and cruel" according to their description and they have Int 11, so they are far from mindless (actually more intelligent than many PCs who use Int as a dump stat... :-).

Avoiding heavily armored opponents seems to be an intelligent decision as well.

Mindless undead on the other hand are mindless indeed :-)

I didn't say Leucrotta were mindless, just that in this encounter they are called out as attacking unarmored pc's (maybe a monk).

Well in the case of the Leucrotta, it would hit the monk and the arcane casters at the same priority. Probably one of the few times the monk would be targeted in preference. Thing is, the monk's flat-footed AC is not great, so if it gets the drop on him he really is quite vulnerable. This isn't playing to the monk's strengths. He's just less vulnerable than the other people targeted, by a bit.

I didn't copy the full text of their tactics but as it happens these leucrotta single out an unarmored PC and focus fire on that PC for the entire duration of combat. If they drop one unarmored PC they select the next one and keep attacking it, flat-footed or otherwise. They only attack armored PC's when there are no more unarmored PC's left.

Anyway this is only one example and I'm sure it isn't a typical one, I just thought it was funny that I encountered it within 20 minutes of abandoning this discussion to go read adventures.

Monks already have novelty, I'm hoping for functionality - that is, that whatever changes Paizo make, they make the monk able to function.

They can't function, because they don't have the best bab?

They can fill plenty of roles and function within them, I've never seen a monk player have a problem functioning; but they aren't what you want them to be, they are not as good as fighters while naked and unarmed, at least, not yet.

Monks are all over the place and they aren't even sure what they want to be. They don't have what they need and they have things that (for me at least) don't make a lot of sense with the fluff like a bonus to base land speed and tongues. They wanted to be Jackie Chan but also a Mystical Sage. The people that I know that wanted to play monks only really want a small subset of the abilities and want that subset of abilities to work better. The other abilities are just bonuses.

What I'd personally like to see is stunning fist as a combat maneuver (not some lousy fort save) that could be used in place of a melee attack and thus be used with flurry of blows.

Suddenly monk is like a hundred times better, because synergy between a monks CMB and they get to add their wisdom bonus.

Dabbler wrote:

Monks already have novelty, I'm hoping for functionality - that is, that whatever changes Paizo make, they make the monk able to function.

They can't function, because they don't have the best bab?

No, they don't function because lower BAB, MAD and lack of enhancement all gang up to make their attack bonus a sorry state of affairs.

They can fill plenty of roles and function within them, I've never seen a monk player have a problem functioning; but they aren't what you want them to be, they are not as good as fighters while naked and unarmed, at least, not yet.

Monks can fulfil a variety of roles, it's true. I can't account for your anecdotes, but in my experience they have to optimise like mad to fill any given role leaving them unable to fill more than one, and then end up doing said role half as well as another class could manage with very little effort and do more besides. THAT's the problem. For myself I would be happy if they were as effective as a fallen paladin at fighting, but they aren't.

I've never seen a monk player have a problem functioning;

Well I sure did.

I've never had a character fail to live up to his image as much as that.

"Oh boy, I get three uses of elemental fist now!"

misses with all of them

I can't honestly say I felt like I was playing a "living weapon"-ish skillful martial artist by the time he finally died...

After getting dropped below 0 more than five times in a single session.

:(

Monk fast speed never made sense to me for why a monk should have it, it could easily be given up for a way to enhance a monk's unarmed attacks using their ki ability.

Maybe give up some of the other random stuff like high jump (just because we call them grasshopper they should jump like grasshoppers!?) to give the monk some sort of DR to represent their "perfection of body" that increased with level and could easily be explained again with their ki magic.

That 20' move for 1 ki point would be great if you moved it as a swift action...

That 20' move for 1 ki point would be great if you moved it as a swift action...

ToB allowed jumping as a swift action (remember you can Jump as far as movement in a round and high movement gave a jump bonus) as a 1st level manuever.

So ToB to the rescue again!

Dabbler wrote:

That 20' move for 1 ki point would be great if you moved it as a swift action...

ToB allowed jumping as a swift action (remember you can Jump as far as movement in a round and high movement gave a jump bonus) as a 1st level manuever.

So ToB to the rescue again!

Would be if it was PFS legal.

Monk fast speed never made sense to me for why a monk should have it, it could easily be given up for a way to enhance a monk's unarmed attacks using their ki ability.

Maybe give up some of the other random stuff like high jump (just because we call them grasshopper they should jump like grasshoppers!?) to give the monk some sort of DR to represent their "perfection of body" that increased with level and could easily be explained again with their ki magic.

I'm a big fan of the monk's fast speed and support Dabbler's suggestion of making the 20' move for 1 ki a a swift action.

High jumping is another favorite of mine. While I don't understand the grasshopper thing you mentioned the high jumping most certainly has its roots in chinese Wu Xia folklore.

Giving the monk DR (maybe coupled to expenditure of ki) makes perfect sense for me.

No I totally understand that the whole high jumping / fast speed is part of the wuxia flavor, but wuxia itself does not revolve entirely around the monks...

You don't know about Grasshopper?

OK, quick flashback for monk inspiration: Kung Fu

That's what monks vs Gunslingers is all about.

He he, didn't remember that part of the series.

You don't know about Grasshopper?

OK, quick flashback for monk inspiration: Kung Fu

That's what monks vs Gunslingers is all about.

Ah the T.V. show that Bruce Lee pitched, but because of the heavy racism in Hollywood at that time was unable to star in it, as he was "too chinky".

anyway, im hoping that paizo understands what monks need, and dont change monks for the worse.

Dabbler wrote:

You don't know about Grasshopper?

OK, quick flashback for monk inspiration: Kung Fu

That's what monks vs Gunslingers is all about.

Ah the T.V. show that Bruce Lee pitched, but because of the heavy racism in Hollywood at that time was unable to star in it, as he was "too chinky".

anyway, im hoping that paizo understands what monks need, and dont change monks for the worse.

You do realize that Dragon: The Bruce Lee Story had fictional parts right? This is one of those parts.

Movement speed and flurry are both important to the monk. They're mutually exclusive however and his attack bonus is weak. Allowing the monk to move up to his fast movement bonus as a swift action gets those two abilities working together.

I still think a mechanic that allows the monk to sacrifice his fast movement for a bonus to attack and/or damage rolls would make a world of difference. It then becomes a resource that can either be leveraged towards getting places, hitting things, or doing a little of both.