Sorry all. Got swamped with work. The build if I recall from memory should go something like this......

Human Monk 10 (lawful good)
Str 22 (+6)
Dex 12 (+1)
Con 12 (+1)
Int 8 (-1)
Wis 17 (+3)
Cha 15 (+2)

Skills:
Climb 14
Hide 15
Move silently 15
Profession (fiddler on the roof) 13
Sense motive 15
Swim 15

Feats:

Stunning fist (1st)
Fiery fists (2nd) +1d6 fire
Improved trip (6th)
Thunder strike (3rd) +4 sonic
Fists of iron (9th)
first blood (6th)
sacred vow (1st)
vow of poverty (1st)
sanctify ki strike
holy ki strike
(three bonus exalted feats unselected)

Hp: 54(average)
Initiative :+1
BAB:+7
CMB: +13 (+10 to trip)
AC: 10+1(dex)+3(wis)+9(vow)+2(levels)=25
FF: 24
Touch: 17
Fort: +9
Reflex: +9
Will: +11 (+13 vs enchantment)
Melee: 7(BAB)+6(strength)+2(exalted)= +15/+15/+10
or
7(BAB)+6(strength)+2(exalted)+4(prone)=19/19/14 vs prone
or
7(BAB)+6(strength)+2(exalted)+4(first blood)= 19/19/14 vs flat footed
Or
7(BAB)+6(strength)+2(exalted)+4(first blood)+4(prone)=23/23/18 vs prone+tripped
Or
7(BAB)+6(strength)+2(exalted)+4(first blood)+4(prone)+2(flanking)=25/25/20 prone/tripped/flanked

Unarmed damage with everything on top,
vs non-evil, creatures immune to fire and sonic:
1d10+6(str)+2(exalted)+1d6(fists of iron)= 16 (average)
vs evil creatures without either resistance, 1d10+1d6(iron fists)+1d6(fiery fists)+4(thunder
strike)+ 2d6(sanctify +holy ki)+6 (str)+2(exalted)= 29 (average)

"Never hit" is not to be taken literally. It is basically saying they don't hit often enough for them to do enough damage per round to be a real threat. Even when they do hit they have trouble bypassing DR, and the other 3/4 BAB classes can out damage them for the most part.......<stuff already said in the thread>

edit:I don't even know if the word "never" was used, but if so the above paragraph explains it.

Dabbler had said

those dice don't get much fun if you never get to roll them.

That's where I got the "never hit" thing from, though I had heard a lot of complaints about Monks rarely hitting before. So, it was using one poster's slight hyperbole as a basis for my own bit of hyperbole :).

Good stuff explaining to hit ratios and AC and stuff.

Thanks, that makes a lot of sense. I hadn't really gone in depth into the math of stuff before, because all the Monks I'd seen played up to now were doing pretty okay, hitting pretty consistently and doing decent damage. But, in the nitty gritty math stuff, I can see why people say the Monk can't hit or dodge very well.

3.5 Loyalist wrote:

Those who think slow fall is hardly useful at all, do your chars only play on flat ground, and have never fallen to your deaths via pit trap or falling off a ledge/cliff?

Curious dm here.

Pit traps usually aren't lethal unless there's something nasty at the bottom. If the something nasty is anything but spikes slow fall isn't helping.

Cliffs and ledges are generally things you should know about. Wizard prepares feather fall. Or doesn't because he thinks familiars are for cheese mongers and took a bonded item. If it's that kind of campaign (or that kind of GM) sorcerers and bards may know feather fall as well.

Failing that feather fall rings are pretty cheap. If it's that kind of campaign or that kind of GM they're better than slow fall. Slow fall isn't unlimited distance until level 20. Feather fall is unlimited distance at level 1.

There are other class features that can be replaced by a ring, but no other class feature that is the only thing but BAB coming on some levels that is more than replaced by an insultingly cheap ring.

Slow fall of course will help, that is 2d6, then 3d6 and so forth less falling damage. You can take the ring of feather fall, yep, and that is a bit of coin, and a ring slot filled. The monk doesn't need to do so such things, they just need levels, starting out with 20 less falling early on. If you go the spell option instead of the item, that is a spell slot filled, and it will only work once, or as much as you can get out of it, over but a few rounds. Wizard prepares feather fall, does he prep 2, 3? I've never seen it. The monk has an ability that helps them survive an old adventuring pitfall (couldn't resist) and it gets stronger as they level, and can be used as many times as they wish. It is a good ability, and since it has worth, they must be balanced in other ways, there is a limit to what they can get.

On the monk build, mmmm, old 3.5 monk, yeaaaah. Nice enough damage. Think your latest monk has better damage though Equalizer.

There is no exalted bonus type in Pathfinder so that at least is a sign that this is a mixed 3.5/PF build. As such it adds about as much to the discussion as a super powerful monk build from GURPS would.

wraithstrike wrote:

"Never hit" is not to be taken literally. It is basically saying they don't hit often enough for them to do enough damage per round to be a real threat. Even when they do hit they have trouble bypassing DR, and the other 3/4 BAB classes can out damage them for the most part.......<stuff already said in the thread>

edit:I don't even know if the word "never" was used, but if so the above paragraph explains it.

Dabbler had said

Dabbler wrote:

those dice don't get much fun if you never get to roll them.

That's where I got the "never hit" thing from, though I had heard a lot of complaints about Monks rarely hitting before. So, it was using one poster's slight hyperbole as a basis for my own bit of hyperbole :).

Neo2151, Ciretose, and Dabbler wrote:

Good stuff explaining to hit ratios and AC and stuff.

Thanks, that makes a lot of sense. I hadn't really gone in depth into the math of stuff before, because all the Monks I'd seen played up to now were doing pretty okay, hitting pretty consistently and doing decent damage. But, in the nitty gritty math stuff, I can see why people say the Monk can't hit or dodge very well.

Cool stuff.

Yeah classes have weaknesses to other classes, to keep it simple the monk is weak against barbs and fighters, or monsters like them, but is strong in the save, movement and two weapon department. Without your +2 dual weapons? No problem for the monk.

Reach opponents can also mess up the monk, if the monk doesn't use reach weapons and want to kung pao the ogre fighter who has a longspear. Martial arts in dnd is not the strongest thing out, but it has its place.

Human Monk 10 (lawful good)

Str 22 (+6)
Dex 12 (+1)
Con 12 (+1)
Int 8 (-1)
Wis 17 (+3)
Cha 15 (+2)

-2 Racial Str

So you're basing this off a 26pt build?

Yeah classes have weaknesses to other classes, to keep it simple the monk is weak against barbs and fighters, or monsters like them, but is strong in the save, movement and two weapon department. Without your +2 dual weapons? No problem for the monk.

Just wanna pick this apart real quick:

Saves: Yep, in general, Monks are good at saves. If you build to survive a fight, there isn't much that will kill you, but you won't really be a threat, so you can be ignored by the monster/bad guy. If you build to be a threat, a lot of that survivability goes out the window and you have less hit points than the other combat classes, so you die faster.

Movement: Best movement out of all the classes, by far (well, until you add magic anyway). Too bad they're HORRIBLE at attacking and moving in the same round. Worse than a Rogue I'd argue, and a Rogue isn't even a combat class.

Two-Weapon Fighting: A normally expensive feat chain for free? Awesome! Except you don't actually get the feats, so you can't take feats that have the TWF feats as prereqs. And you're limited to awful Monk weapons or confusing and convoluted (currently being examined) Unarmed Strikes.

Neo. Not this again, why will monks be ignored? Why will spells not be wasted on trying to take you out? Why will opponents walk around you, allowing attacks of opportunity and flurries? Because enemies all know what monks are, and especially what this char is? The monsters/bandits/opponents do not know all that the monk can do, what they are, that is meta-gaming and it has come up before.

3/4 bab with a +2 from charge, at level 4 an 80ft charge range and a d8 with their bare hands (feet, elbows, whatever). Do you not like longswords or something? Or hands that do longsword damage? :D

Another problem, right at the end. How is unarmed strike "confusing and convoluted"? I am looking at the unarmed damage, their bab and flurry of blows attack bonus right now. Was there something you didn't understand here? Is it convoluted that their damage goes up? Or that flurry uses a different equation to bab?

Of the monk weapons, javelins, crossbows, spears and short swords are good weapons and in the monk proficiencies. How are they awful?

You cannot flurry with javelins, crossbows, spears, or short swords because they don't have the monk weapon property.

The equalizer wrote:

Human Monk 10 (lawful good)

Str 22 (+6)
Dex 12 (+1)
Con 12 (+1)
Int 8 (-1)
Wis 17 (+3)
Cha 15 (+2)

-2 Racial Str

-2 Level/4 Str
-2 Belt of Str
-2 Headband of Wis
Leaves:
16
12
12
8
15
15

So you're basing this off a 26pt build?

It looks like a straight 3.5 VOP monk build (based on the feat progression I'd guess that it's 3.5 only), they get scaling bonuses to attack/damage, ac, stats, saves, bonus exalted feats, et cetera in exchange for giving up access to all wealth and magic items/expensive mundane equipment. I forget the exact progression but at level 10 the only bonuses to stats is a +2 to one ability score those are either rolled stats or something like a 3.5 rules 45 point buy with the VOP +2 going in to STR.

Neo. Not this again, why will monks be ignored? Why will spells not be wasted on trying to take you out? Why will opponents walk around you, allowing attacks of opportunity and flurries? Because enemies all know what monks are, and especially what this char is? The monsters/bandits/opponents do not know all that the monk can do, what they are, that is meta-gaming and it has come up before.

3/4 bab with a +2 from charge, at level 4 an 80ft charge range and a d8 with their bare hands (feet, elbows, whatever). Do you not like longswords or something? Or hands that do longsword damage? :D

Another problem, right at the end. How is unarmed strike "confusing and convoluted"? I am looking at the unarmed damage, their bab and flurry of blows attack bonus right now. Was there something you didn't understand here? Is it convoluted that their damage goes up? Or that flurry uses a different equation to bab?

Of the monk weapons, javelins, crossbows, spears and short swords are good weapons and in the monk proficiencies. How are they awful?

+1

Neo2151 wrote:

The equalizer wrote:

Human Monk 10 (lawful good)

Str 22 (+6)
Dex 12 (+1)
Con 12 (+1)
Int 8 (-1)
Wis 17 (+3)
Cha 15 (+2)

-2 Racial Str

-2 Level/4 Str
-2 Belt of Str
-2 Headband of Wis
Leaves:
16
12
12
8
15
15

So you're basing this off a 26pt build?

It looks like a straight 3.5 VOP monk build (based on the feat progression I'd guess that it's 3.5 only), they get scaling bonuses to attack/damage, ac, stats, saves, bonus exalted feats, et cetera in exchange for giving up access to all wealth and magic items/expensive mundane equipment. I forget the exact progression but at level 10 the only bonuses to stats (is a +2 to one ability score) those are either rolled stats or something like a 3.5 rules 45 point buy with the VOP +2 going in to STR.

That would explain all the talk about 'exalted feats'.

3.5 Loyalist wrote:

Neo. Not this again, why will monks be ignored? Why will spells not be wasted on trying to take you out? Why will opponents walk around you, allowing attacks of opportunity and flurries? Because enemies all know what monks are, and especially what this char is? The monsters/bandits/opponents do not know all that the monk can do, what they are, that is meta-gaming and it has come up before.

3/4 bab with a +2 from charge, at level 4 an 80ft charge range and a d8 with their bare hands (feet, elbows, whatever). Do you not like longswords or something? Or hands that do longsword damage? :D

Another problem, right at the end. How is unarmed strike "confusing and convoluted"? I am looking at the unarmed damage, their bab and flurry of blows attack bonus right now. Was there something you didn't understand here? Is it convoluted that their damage goes up? Or that flurry uses a different equation to bab?

Of the monk weapons, javelins, crossbows, spears and short swords are good weapons and in the monk proficiencies. How are they awful?

+1

Especially the whole "can be ignored" stuff just does not ring with me and has a strong metagaming feel to it.
And slow fall just saved my monk's life recently, so it's cool imo :-)

Yeah, in fact just last friday, a monk (minor levels) fighter (most levels) failed a climb check down a spiky crystal cliff to rescue a trapped adventurer. This char, whom I think is a pretty good build, has great damage, more feats than most monks and better hit die and bab, but does not have slow fall, at all. If the monk had been a level 9 pure monk, they'd have taken 4d6 less falling damage.

Now indeed you can't flurry with a crossbow, lol, but that doesn't make them awful weapons just because you can't do that. A jav doesn't have the best damage in the game, but you add str, and you can throw it, unlike a greatsword (assuming you don't have throw anything). Same deal with spears, they don't do the most damage, but they have their own good points, can be thrown, set for charge, x3, mmmm. Short swords are a common back up weapon, and a frequent dual wielding weapon, nice chance of crit, good chance to find magic versions or uber versions if tackling rogues.

If you're not flurrying you're no better at combat than an Expert. That's a noncombat NPC class.

If you're not flurrying you're no better at combat than an Expert. That's a noncombat NPC class.

In 3.5 L's games, that's not exactly a problem.

Neo. Not this again, why will monks be ignored? Why will spells not be wasted on trying to take you out? Why will opponents walk around you, allowing attacks of opportunity and flurries? Because enemies all know what monks are, and especially what this char is? The monsters/bandits/opponents do not know all that the monk can do, what they are, that is meta-gaming and it has come up before.

Who said anything about metagaming? No, the DM isn't just being a jack-ass with his monsters, he's using them like the intelligent foes they're supposed to be.

3/4 bab with a +2 from charge, at level 4 an 80ft charge range and a d8 with their bare hands (feet, elbows, whatever). Do you not like longswords or something? Or hands that do longsword damage? :D

d8? Really? Forget about feats that add to damage (you can 2-hand a longsword, not a punch... and weapon spec... etc), or how it's easier to enhance the longsword (especially at this level/wealth), or how it deals double damage FOUR TIMES as often as that punch (5% vs 20%, especially considering you can keen a sword earlier than you can take imp. crit). There's so much more to damage that you're being willfully ignorant of, just to support your argument.

Another problem, right at the end. How is unarmed strike "confusing and convoluted"? I am looking at the unarmed damage, their bab and flurry of blows attack bonus right now. Was there something you didn't understand here? Is it convoluted that their damage goes up? Or that flurry uses a different equation to bab?

Flurry requires TWF mechanics, and TWF mechanics with Unarmed Strike... C'mon, this one's all over the boards. And will continue to be until the Devs tweak the class.

Of the monk weapons, javelins, crossbows, spears and short swords are good weapons and in the monk proficiencies. How are they awful?

None of which can be flurried with. And, as Atarlost so eloquently put it:

If you're not flurrying you're no better at combat than an Expert. That's a noncombat NPC class.

Dabbler wrote:

Darth Grall wrote:

Enough beating up on the monk though, you guys showed me how effective the bard is too. Is there any 3/4 BAB that doesn't kick the Monk's teeth in? Beyond even the core rule book, how about things like the vanilla Inquisitor? The vanilla Summoner?

Possibly the rogue, but that's about it. All the other 3/4 BAB classes are also spell-casters, and can self-buff.

I am being incorrectly quoted here, please correct that.

My apologies, it got complicated trying to break up the multiple posts!

3.5 Loyalist wrote:

Neo. Not this again, why will monks be ignored? Why will spells not be wasted on trying to take you out? Why will opponents walk around you, allowing attacks of opportunity and flurries? Because enemies all know what monks are, and especially what this char is? The monsters/bandits/opponents do not know all that the monk can do, what they are, that is meta-gaming and it has come up before.

Who said anything about metagaming? No, the DM isn't just being a jack-ass with his monsters, he's using them like the intelligent foes they're supposed to be.

"Well, that guy with the greatsword can hit me pretty often, and when he does, it really hurts. That guy with the martial arts isn't hitting me quite as often, and when he does hit me, he has trouble getting through my defenses (ie: DR). So I think I'll kill the one who can hurt me first, and deal with the other one after."

3.5 Loyalist wrote:

3/4 bab with a +2 from charge, at level 4 an 80ft charge range and a d8 with their bare hands (feet, elbows, whatever). Do you not like longswords or something? Or hands that do longsword damage? :D

d8? Really? Forget about feats that add to damage (you can 2-hand a longsword, not a punch... and weapon spec... etc), or how it's easier to enhance the longsword (especially at this level/wealth), or how it deals double damage FOUR TIMES as often as that punch (5% vs 20%, especially considering you can keen a sword earlier than you can take imp. crit). There's so much more to damage that you're being willfully ignorant of, just to support your argument.

3.5 Loyalist wrote:

Another problem, right at the end. How is unarmed strike "confusing and convoluted"? I am looking at the unarmed damage, their bab and flurry of blows attack bonus right now. Was there something you didn't understand here? Is it convoluted that their damage goes up? Or that flurry uses a different equation to bab?

Flurry requires TWF mechanics, and TWF mechanics with Unarmed Strike... C'mon, this one's all...

Yes, but how is it confusing and convoluted to you? You made the claim, you used those words, they have to apply to work as a claim. You understand how it works right? You can read the charts, roll dice, and determine the damage yeah?

It is similar to TWF, but it isn't the same thing, it doesn't use TWF feats, the monks just get it. They flurry away, kick punch punch, wattaaaaa, whatever. The damage racks up pretty fast if they don't have a brilliant ac, but yes, the high ac, heavy foot, giant armour plated monsters are the counter to the monk. This is the weakness they have been given, so as to not be heads above other melee classes, by being on par with them and having additional special abilities and arguably better reflex and will.

Now I did want to add something else before I finish, you might not like the unarmed, but get this, news just in! Your fancy magic sword/axe/bow, they can be disarmed, sundered or if they are not light, their use can be shut down via a grapple. Try to do that to a monks unarmed.

So the monk's martial arts sits a bit behind what is possible with blademasters and great mountain tribesmen that can split skulls and trees, but you cannot take the monks weapons away, they always have them, don't have to draw them, upgrade them and will never lose them to an ooze, rust monster or disintegrate/weapon attacking spell. That is a serious bonus there. The swordsman loses their super upgraded magic sword and they are in trouble, a monk cannot lose their inner sword.

Maybe magic items are sacred and never get targetted or taken away by those thinking enemies you mention above, maybe there are no rust monsters or oozes in your setting, the sunder feat has been forgotten via all armies, mercs, bandits and monsters alike. In which case, you should probably never go a monk. There isn't an appreciation of the other abilities, so you can pretend they just got genocided by a band of non-monk heroes.

Those who think slow fall is hardly useful at all, do your chars only play on flat ground, and have never fallen to your deaths via pit trap or falling off a ledge/cliff?

Curious dm here.

My 11th level monk has used slow fall twice already in his career! Once on purpose to drop down the side of a building, once when he rolled two natural '1's - first to detect a pit-trap, second to avoid falling in! Still took 3d6 from the spikes at the bottom of the pit, though.

You see, there are two factors in judging how useful an ability is: what benefit it does, and how often it comes into play. Slow fall doesn't do a lot (compared to a 1st level spell), and doesn't get used often. If you could spend a feat on slow fall, would anyone bother?

Human Monk 10 (lawful good)

Str 22 (+6)
Dex 12 (+1)
Con 12 (+1)
Int 8 (-1)
Wis 17 (+3)
Cha 15 (+2)

OK, this is a 26 point-buy build as noted above, so it's over the Pathfinder norm. That's OK if you are dicing for stats, you can get lucky (I did with my monk).

Skills:

Climb 14
Hide 15
Move silently 15
Profession (fiddler on the roof) 13
Sense motive 15
Swim 15

Skill-set is uninspiring, probably down to that low Int.

Feats:

Stunning fist (1st)
Fiery fists (2nd) +1d6 fire
Improved trip (6th)
Thunder strike (3rd) +4 sonic
Fists of iron (9th)
first blood (6th)
sacred vow (1st)
vow of poverty (1st)
sanctify ki strike
holy ki strike
(three bonus exalted feats unselected)

Bolded items are unavailable in Pathfinder. Vow of Poverty exists, but not as a feat, it's an option for more ki. This is where most of this characters AC and damage is coming from, which kind of makes it irrelevant for the purposes of discussing the Pathfinder monk.

Hp: 54(average)

Initiative :+1
BAB:+7
CMB: +13 (+10 to trip)
AC: 10+1(dex)+3(wis)+9(vow)+2(levels)=25
FF: 24
Touch: 17
Fort: +9
Reflex: +9
Will: +11 (+13 vs enchantment)

Hit points are low, saves are uninspiring (for a monk, I will add), without the vow the AC is awful (but then no items, but even if he had them he'd still be well behind the curve).

{Stuff}

+1, said everything I would say.

The thing with unarmed strike is, in isolation it does have some advantages - can't be disarmed, sundered, taken away; has rising damage dice. But of all of those, only the rising damage dice have any real impact on the game. How often to characters lose their major weapons? almost never except as plot devices. How often do enemies sunder or disarm? rarely, in my experience.

On the flip side, it has major disadvantages: very limited enhancements, inability to get by most forms of DR except through enhancement. Tie these on top of the monk's other problems, and there are few ways of compensating for these disadvantages in any other way.

Yep, but equalizer claimed that years ago he saw this monk made, a monk which overcame some of the raised monk weaknesses. How would he be discussing a pathfinder monk almost a decade back?

If pathfinder wants to give you a new (weak?) monk, and take away the options of the 3.5 monk, then sell some back to you... that is your business and their profit. A good damaging monk can be done with what is out there. Maybe it is time to look to 3.5 to fix the monk, and not wait for pathfinder to do so.

Real maverick here lol.

The way has already been shown, it is time to begin the journey of a thousand monk victories and break out the fists of iron!

Maybe it is time to look to 3.5 to fix the monk, and not wait for pathfinder to do so.

The problem, though, is not the damage output. The problem is hitting the target, always was in 3.5 as well where the term 'flurry of misses' was first coined. That hasn't been fixed in Pathfinder, although the new flurry rules appeared to make a step in that direction, they haven't gone far enough.

Upping damage output in 3.5 kind of compensated because you could jack up damage such that when you did hit, it hurt, but that was a mask for the real problem IMHO.

3.5 Loyalist wrote:

Maybe it is time to look to 3.5 to fix the monk, and not wait for pathfinder to do so.

The problem, though, is not the damage output. The problem is hitting the target, always was in 3.5 as well where the term 'flurry of misses' was first coined. That hasn't been fixed in Pathfinder, although the new flurry rules appeared to make a step in that direction, they haven't gone far enough.

Upping damage output in 3.5 kind of compensated because you could jack up damage such that when you did hit, it hurt, but that was a mask for the real problem IMHO.

So much this. It isn't about damage, it is about.

1. Being able to hit at CR level on pace with other 3/4 bab classes
2. Being able to overcome DR with magic weapons like other classes.

That's it, that is the list.

Dabbler wrote:

3.5 Loyalist wrote:

Maybe it is time to look to 3.5 to fix the monk, and not wait for pathfinder to do so.

The problem, though, is not the damage output. The problem is hitting the target, always was in 3.5 as well where the term 'flurry of misses' was first coined. That hasn't been fixed in Pathfinder, although the new flurry rules appeared to make a step in that direction, they haven't gone far enough.

Upping damage output in 3.5 kind of compensated because you could jack up damage such that when you did hit, it hurt, but that was a mask for the real problem IMHO.

So much this. It isn't about damage, it is about.

1. Being able to hit at CR level on pace with other full bab classes
2. Being able to overcome DR with magic weapons like other classes.

That's it, that is the list.

Minor edit there.

From what I have seen, most combat-oriented 3/4 BAB classes can hit pretty much on pace with full BAB classes anyway, save for the iterative attacks. The only two exceptions are the rogue (not a combat class) and the monk.

Cleric, magus, druid, summoner etc all have spells to self-buff, while the bard can use bardic performance to self-buff as well as their spells.

Got a bit carried away there. Its version 3.5, not pathfinder. My bad for not clarifying. The build isn't perfect, there are some glaring weaknesses. Thats just how the game system works. To specialize in some areas to the fullest extent, it means there will be other areas neglected.
I admit that the build is a poor comparison compared to that done by a classmate of mine in high school. In terms of varying builds which worked, he knew his stuff very well. Besides, the game isn't about one character, its about the party. Trip specialist monk + flanking specialist rogue= badass combination. Situational bonuses to attack through the roof. If the monk and rogue have some trouble hitting certain high AC creatures, use situational bonuses, milk it for all its worth. slap on a situational attack bonus of +8 to the rogue and +5 to the monk, the hits suddenly start becoming alot more common. It won't work against every opponent but then again, no specific build is great against everything and everyone in every situation. If a build seems to be pretty much untouchable in the game, the dm is either holding back or has not considered certain factors and types of opponents to really challenge the party as a whole.

ciretose wrote:

Dabbler wrote:

3.5 Loyalist wrote:

Maybe it is time to look to 3.5 to fix the monk, and not wait for pathfinder to do so.

The problem, though, is not the damage output. The problem is hitting the target, always was in 3.5 as well where the term 'flurry of misses' was first coined. That hasn't been fixed in Pathfinder, although the new flurry rules appeared to make a step in that direction, they haven't gone far enough.

Upping damage output in 3.5 kind of compensated because you could jack up damage such that when you did hit, it hurt, but that was a mask for the real problem IMHO.

So much this. It isn't about damage, it is about.

1. Being able to hit at CR level on pace with other 3/4 bab classes
2. Being able to overcome DR with magic weapons like other classes.

That's it, that is the list.

Minor edit there.

The only time a Monk doesn't get full BAB is when making a simple attack. Maneuvers and full attacks get full BAB.

No edit needed. I meant what I wrote. I put it back, please don't edit quotes.

All of the other 3/4 BaB classes can self buff attack bonuses except for the rogue who can focus on Dex (with weapon finesse) and can buy items cheaper than AoMF that don't take a slot.

From what I have seen, most combat-oriented 3/4 BAB classes can hit pretty much on pace with full BAB classes anyway, save for the iterative attacks. The only two exceptions are the rogue (not a combat class) and the monk.

Cleric, magus, druid, summoner etc all have spells to self-buff, while the bard can use bardic performance to self-buff as well as their spells.

And the rogue can pour in Dex like martial classes pour into Str, as well as being able to buy weapons that cost less than half as much as AoMF that don't take slots.

Wasn't trying to change your message. Was just using your words to promote my message, since everything else I agree with.

But Monks don't self-buff. And they never will, because that would make Flurry (potentially) too good. In fact, I would go so far as to say that if you're looking to play a class that self-buffs, you wouldn't enjoy the Monk anyway. There are other, MUCH better options for that style of play. Having a Monk suddenly be doing it too is stepping on the style-toes of other classes.

Wasn't trying to change your message. Was just using your words to promote my message, since everything else I agree with.

But Monks don't self-buff. And they never will, because that would make Flurry (potentially) too good. In fact, I would go so far as to say that if you're looking to play a class that self-buffs, you wouldn't enjoy the Monk anyway. There are other, MUCH better options for that style of play. Having a Monk suddenly be doing it too is stepping on the style-toes of other classes.

The problem is there is a lot of dismissing of the monk issue as people wanting to much power, so I want it to be clear it isn't a competition with being the melee equal of the martial classes, but competitive with the 3/4 bab classes.

Wasn't trying to change your message. Was just using your words to promote my message, since everything else I agree with.

But Monks don't self-buff. And they never will, because that would make Flurry (potentially) too good. In fact, I would go so far as to say that if you're looking to play a class that self-buffs, you wouldn't enjoy the Monk anyway. There are other, MUCH better options for that style of play. Having a Monk suddenly be doing it too is stepping on the style-toes of other classes.

This is true, but currently they all step on the monk's style-toes. Monk's not self-buffing isn't the issue, the issue is that they need a boost in actually scoring hits and in getting through DR.

I do agree that whatever boost you give the monk, he has enough other benefits in his defences that he doesn't need to punch above the base-line - but he does need to hit that base-line in order to function, and currently he can't even get close to it. I really don't like being in a position where in half the fights I can't hit, can't do actual damage even if I do hit, and cannot reach the CMD target.

3.5 Loyalist wrote:

Neo. Not this again, why will monks be ignored? Why will spells not be wasted on trying to take you out? Why will opponents walk around you, allowing attacks of opportunity and flurries? Because enemies all know what monks are, and especially what this char is? The monsters/bandits/opponents do not know all that the monk can do, what they are, that is meta-gaming and it has come up before.

Who said anything about metagaming? No, the DM isn't just being a jack-ass with his monsters, he's using them like the intelligent foes they're supposed to be.

"Well, that guy with the greatsword can hit me pretty often, and when he does, it really hurts. That guy with the martial arts isn't hitting me quite as often, and when he does hit me, he has trouble getting through my defenses (ie: DR). So I think I'll kill the one who can hurt me first, and deal with the other one after."

a) NOt every monster/enemy is intelligent enough.

b)unless the enemies know the party then in the begining of the fight every char would seems like a threat. ( i mean the unarmed guy could be a wizard afther all)

c) if the enemy waste an attack or spells in the monk then then monk have donde his job. the more attacks they waste the better.

It is not like "hey I miss, this guy probably have crane wings therefore i will not attack him again"

that is metagaming.

a) NOt every monster/enemy is intelligent enough.

b)unless the enemies know the party then in the begining of the fight every char would seems like a threat. ( i mean the unarmed guy could be a wizard afther all)

c) if the enemy waste an attack or spells in the monk then then monk have donde his job. the more attacks they waste the better.

It is not like "hey I miss, this guy probably have crane wings therefore i will not attack him again"

that is metagaming.

a) "Intelligent" was probably a bad choice of words, considering it means something statistically in this game. "Natural sense of survival" is better. Even animals can distinguish threat levels, and they have Int scores of 1-2. Your argument only works for mindless things.

b) You'll notice that in my above "suggestion," the enemy has "figured things out" based on how the rounds play out. Why would you then assume he/she/it gets this "insight" before the fight even starts? Of course everyone is a potential threat at the beginning of a fight! But it only takes one lame hit or miss to form an opinion.

c) So "target dummy" is a good enough party role for the Monk "heroic adventurer" in your group? Man I feel bad for that player.

I personally think the inquistior is one of the most well designed classes in the game. It is always useful but rarely overpowered. They really hit the mark on that class.

When you compare the monk and inquistior, the issues become painfully clear.

A good point Ciretose.

I still think Ranger is the stronger comparison though (and Ranger also happens to be very well designed ;). )

Nicos wrote:

a) NOt every monster/enemy is intelligent enough.

b)unless the enemies know the party then in the begining of the fight every char would seems like a threat. ( i mean the unarmed guy could be a wizard afther all)

c) if the enemy waste an attack or spells in the monk then then monk have donde his job. the more attacks they waste the better.

It is not like "hey I miss, this guy probably have crane wings therefore i will not attack him again"

that is metagaming.

a) "Intelligent" was probably a bad choice of words, considering it means something statistically in this game. "Natural sense of survival" is better. Even animals can distinguish threat levels, and they have Int scores of 1-2. Your argument only works for mindless things.

Again, not meta-gaming.

b) You'll notice that in my above "suggestion," the enemy has "figured things out" based on how the rounds play out. Why would you then assume he/she/it gets this "insight" before the fight even starts? Of course everyone is a potential threat at the beginning of a fight! But it only takes one lame hit or miss to form an opinion.

c) So "target dummy" is a good enough party role for the Monk "heroic adventurer" in your group? Man I feel bad for that player.

1) even animls would not know who is the threat in the first round. ignoring the monk in the first round is metageaming

2) The fights do not long much. If the enemy wast even a single spell or attak in the monk that can give the party a crucial advantage.

3)You can read my other post in the thread and in other monks thread I even want a FULL BAB for the monk, that do not mean that the strong side of the class(defense) should used against the monk, at least not in most of fights.

Those who think slow fall is hardly useful at all, do your chars only play on flat ground, and have never fallen to your deaths via pit trap or falling off a ledge/cliff?

Curious dm here.

When it comes to dealing with pits or climbing ledges most of the time the climb or jump check is made, and even when it isn't, not that much damage is done. Due to the nature of the game you can fall 60 or 70 feet, wipe yourself off, and walk away.

PS:In my 9 to 10 years of gaming I have never fallen in a pit trap or off a cliff, and I have only seen it happen as a GM 3 times.

Wizard prepares feather fall, does he prep 2, 3? I've never seen it.

I have only seen it prepped once, but I have read stories about it prepped. Personally that is the type of spell that I keep a scroll for. There is no way I put it in a daily slot, unless I know for sure I will need it. I don't even know if it makes it into my spellbook to be honest.

Neo. Not this again, why will monks be ignored? Why will spells not be wasted on trying to take you out? Why will opponents walk around you, allowing attacks of opportunity and flurries? Because enemies all know what monks are, and especially what this char is? The monsters/bandits/opponents do not know all that the monk can do, what they are, that is meta-gaming and it has come up before.

3/4 bab with a +2 from charge, at level 4 an 80ft charge range and a d8 with their bare hands (feet, elbows, whatever). Do you not like longswords or something? Or hands that do longsword damage? :D

Another problem, right at the end. How is unarmed strike "confusing and convoluted"? I am looking at the unarmed damage, their bab and flurry of blows attack bonus right now. Was there something you didn't understand here? Is it convoluted that their damage goes up? Or that flurry uses a different equation to bab?

Of the monk weapons, javelins, crossbows, spears and short swords are good weapons and in the monk proficiencies. How are they awful?

Because some other party member will be causing the bad guys more trouble, and he might also be easier to hurt.

If I am being attacked by a giant turtle(hard to hurt, but not exactly something I have to worry about killing me quickly, and a wolf I will kill the wolf first. It is more dangerous, but probably easier to kill since it does not have a shell.

That is how the monk is. Once you kill the more dangerous characters you get back to the monk.

We are not saying the monk has to be ignored on round 1, but after round 1 barring bad or really good dice role you will know who the threat is.

Human Monk 10 (lawful good)

Str 22 (+6)
Dex 12 (+1)
Con 12 (+1)
Int 8 (-1)
Wis 17 (+3)
Cha 15 (+2)

Feats:
vow of poverty (1st)

It would be better if you listed base stat and magic itemsd seperate.

Example: Level 11
Base stats:
Str 14 (+3) +2 human +4 (feat) +2 level=22 (6)
Dex 12 (+1)
Con 12 (+1)
Int 8 (-1)
Wis 15 (+2) +2 feat =17
Cha 15 (+2)

Str = 14 = -5 points
Dex =12 = -2
Con =12 = -2
Int = 8 =+2
Wis =15 = -7 points
Cha = 15 = -7 points

21 point buy.

If we did it at 10:
Base stats:
Str 16 (+3) +2 human +2 (feat) +2 level=22 (6)
Dex 12 (+1)
Con 12 (+1)
Int 8 (-1)
Wis 17 (+2)
Cha 15 (+2)

Str = 16 = -10 points
Dex =12 = -2
Con =12 = -2
Int = 8 =+2
Wis =15 = -13 points
Cha = 15 = -7 points

32 point buy

Shadowdweller wrote:

Darth Grall wrote:

All the other classes are effective at their base form, they all get something good that makes them kick butt and their archtypes enhance or change what that thing is. Monks though are almost forced to take archtypes to be effective, paying feat taxes for the combat style feats or other niche feats which they can't get with their own bonus feats. Sure they get defensive abilities, but frankly not all of them are useful with their saves and more often then not are troublesome.

Yeah, because it's COMPLETELY reasonable to compare the monk to classes which only appear in splatbooks while restricting the monk from any options that appear in those same splatbooks. What COULD those writers have been thinking? I guess the fact that the nature bond: domain ability sucks in comparison to animal companions just means the druid is a terrible class.

It is not unfair if those classes are restricted to the CRB for feats and other options.

This.

Also I think you(Shadowdweller) missed the point of what I was saying. I'm aware there are options availible to the monk that can help them to one degree or another, be it an archtype or a special feat, but they are a band-aid on the problem that is vanilla monks. Furthermore they feel like a tax upon the class that one must pay if they want the class to be effective at anything. Also, if your dm only has core and APG, those new vanilla BASE CLASSES will be kicking butt compared to you, even with your new options.

Because some other party member will be causing the bad guys more trouble, and he might also be easier to hurt.

If I am being attacked by a giant turtle(hard to hurt, but not exactly something I have to worry about killing me quickly, and a wolf I will kill the wolf first. It is more dangerous, but probably easier to kill since it does not have a shell.

That is how the monk is. Once you kill the more dangerous characters you get back to the monk.

We are not saying the monk has to be ignored on round 1, but after round 1 barring bad or really good dice role you will know who the threat is.

This again.

For example, this is exactly what happened in a game with my players. They came up against an enemy "party" composed of a free-hand fighter, a martial artist monk(specialized in crane style), and a barbarian. The fight started where they went 2 on each of them(so 2 on the monk, 2 on the barbarian, 2 on the fighter). Now, as you may know, crane is one of the defensive forms and really only benefits if attacked. For the first 3 rounds of combat, 2 of my players attacked the monk. Since they weren't hitting him, and he was knocking the tar out of the rogue back, they called for some backup from one of the ones attacking the barbarian, and spent another round, seeing if with 3, they could take him. After this one more round of trial and error, they decided to ignore the monk and focus on the targest they could hit. They then focused on the Barbarian(whom was the easiest to hit due to rage penalties) and then the fighter before they all turned on the monk and wore him down through sheer numbers.

Point is, it took the players ~4 turns to figure out the monk was too hard to hit, communicate it to the others, and realize he couldn't hit them as hard or as effectively if they stopped fighting him. Now granted, these are players which are (argueably) keener than the average monster but the fact stands that they figured out what to do.

So sure, mindless skeletons might still just charge the monk relentlessly if he stands in one place, but against humanoid npcs or intelligent monsters, it's not metagaming to change targets off the monk; it's common sense.

1) even animls would not know who is the threat in the first round. ignoring the monk in the first round is metageaming

In the first round, yes. In the first round an animal will attack whatever is nearest to them. When they find they cannpt hurt it and something else hurts them, they will attack that.

Not that animals are common at the mid-high levels where the monk's hitting problems cut in...

2) The fights do not long much. If the enemy wast even a single spell or attak in the monk that can give the party a crucial advantage.

It's an advantage, but is being a target for a single spell, attack or special ability early in the fight really pulling your weight in the party?

3)You can read my other post in the thread and in other monks thread I even want a FULL BAB for the monk, that do not mean that the strong side of the class(defense) should used against the monk, at least not in most of fights.

I am not sure full BAB would be the solution to the monk's problems; he effectively has that already in FoB and it's not a solution.

Full BAB would help because FLurry is a confusing and unnecessary complicated rule. FULL BAB would help with attacks of opportunity, standar actions attack, CMD, spring attack and would end the necesescity of maneuver master class ability.

And monk could attack without flurry so no -2 to hit.

Nicos wrote:

1) even animls would not know who is the threat in the first round. ignoring the monk in the first round is metageaming

In the first round, yes. In the first round an animal will attack whatever is nearest to them. When they find they cannpt hurt it and something else hurts them, they will attack that.

Not that animals are common at the mid-high levels where the monk's hitting problems cut in...

Nicos wrote:

2) The fights do not long much. If the enemy wast even a single spell or attak in the monk that can give the party a crucial advantage.

It's an advantage, but is being a target for a single spell, attack or special ability early in the fight really pulling your weight in the party?

I am not argu in favor of the monk. I think is a class with lots of problems. However having the DM constantly ignoring the Monk and attacking other party members is metagame most of times.

It is like not casting spells against the paladin or the supertitous barbarian because the DM know they have hihg Saves.

2) The fights do not long much. If the enemy wast even a single spell or attak in the monk that can give the party a crucial advantage.

And if the enemy waste even a single attack on a commoner hireling dressed up as a wizard, that can give the party the same advantage advantage.

Being a target for enemy fire is not a feature of the monk class. Anyone can attempt to draw enemy fire, regardless of class and level.

Nicos wrote:

2) The fights do not long much. If the enemy wast even a single spell or attak in the monk that can give the party a crucial advantage.

And if the enemy waste even a single attack on a commoner hireling dressed up as a wizard, that can give the party the same advantage advantage.

Being a target for enemy fire is not a feature of the monk class. Anyone can attempt to draw enemy fire, regardless of class and level.

to have a hihg AC, Hihg saves, evasion and a couple of inmunities help with that.

Nicos wrote:

2) The fights do not long much. If the enemy wast even a single spell or attak in the monk that can give the party a crucial advantage.

And if the enemy waste even a single attack on a commoner hireling dressed up as a wizard, that can give the party the same advantage advantage.

Being a target for enemy fire is not a feature of the monk class. Anyone can attempt to draw enemy fire, regardless of class and level.

Maybe. But monks SURVIVE.

Epic Meepo wrote:

Nicos wrote:

2) The fights do not long much. If the enemy wast even a single spell or attak in the monk that can give the party a crucial advantage.

And if the enemy waste even a single attack on a commoner hireling dressed up as a wizard, that can give the party the same advantage advantage.

Being a target for enemy fire is not a feature of the monk class. Anyone can attempt to draw enemy fire, regardless of class and level.

Maybe. But monks SURVIVE.

THAT is their feature, and their package to do that is greatly underestimated here IMO.

Being able to outlive your party members is not a talent that will make you many friends, and who wants to play the guy who did cartwheels around the battlefield while his buddies were actually connecting and influencing the course of the fight? Granted, there is some value in having a guy who can collect everyone's pinky fingers after a TPK and run them back to a temple for Resurrection.

Granted, that's a bit extreme, but there is a very real truth to the fact that monk really only shines in a limited number of situations after 3rd level, and those are primarily when you are fighting other humanoids with (or without) class levels. Against a lot of the monsters out there, the monk really underperforms. And unlike most classes, who start dominating the battlefield or seeing marked increases in usefulness at certain benchmarks (Bards and Inquisitors start taking off at 3rd level, the magus starts seeing crits nearly once a round that multiply his spell damage as soon as he picks up a keen weapon or gets Imp. Crit, Rogues can make most moderate skill checks without even rolling by 6th level) the monk follows the steady progression of a fighter, but with even smaller incremental improvements, until he's a good solid 5 points (or more) behind to-hit compared to most other 3/4 BAB classes, and further behind the full BAB guys. At the same time, more and more enemies are gaining access to special movement types or spells/spell-like abilities, so the odds of any class getting full attacks in decreases, and the monk drops even further behind the curve as his most potent offensive ability sees less and less use.

So, having good defences is bad for the monk?

Sangalor wrote:

Epic Meepo wrote:

Nicos wrote:

2) The fights do not long much. If the enemy wast even a single spell or attak in the monk that can give the party a crucial advantage.

And if the enemy waste even a single attack on a commoner hireling dressed up as a wizard, that can give the party the same advantage advantage.

Being a target for enemy fire is not a feature of the monk class. Anyone can attempt to draw enemy fire, regardless of class and level.

Maybe. But monks SURVIVE.

THAT is their feature, and their package to do that is greatly underestimated here IMO.

Being able to outlive your party members is not a talent that will make you many friends, and who wants to play the guy who did cartwheels around the battlefield while his buddies were actually connecting and influencing the course of the fight? Granted, there is some value in having a guy who can collect everyone's pinky fingers after a TPK and run them back to a temple for Resurrection.

Well, outliving other party member is one potential consequence. It has happened to my groups a few times. Once my monk was able to pick up a dying character and just run away with him (yes, that increased speed can be really useful).

Also, when a monk draws the enemy's fire and thus prevents the fireball dropped on the bad-ass-greatsword-dpr-optimizied-barbarian-who-has-crappy-reflex-saves or the targeted dispel goes to the monk instead of his greatly buffed eldritch knight buddy, then that's worth it.
And a monk is able to do THAT and survive. Most others cannot without a substantial investments of feats or gear.

And yes, I am personally satisfied if I helped out like that. I do not need to be the one who is the king of damage or mistress of lightning bolts!

I build my characters for survival and to have a few strengths where they shine and look as to how I can contribute to the group. It has worked perfectly for me so far :-)

Granted, that's a bit extreme, but there is a very real truth to the fact that monk really only shines in a limited number of situations after 3rd level, and those are primarily when you are fighting other humanoids with (or without) class levels. Against a lot of the monsters out there, the monk really underperforms. And unlike most classes, who start dominating the battlefield or seeing marked increases in usefulness at certain benchmarks (Bards and Inquisitors start taking off at 3rd level, the magus starts seeing crits nearly once a round that multiply his spell damage as soon as he picks up a keen weapon or gets Imp. Crit, Rogues can make most moderate skill checks without even rolling by 6th level) the monk follows the steady progression of a fighter, but with even smaller incremental improvements, until he's a good solid 5 points (or more) behind to-hit compared to most other 3/4 BAB classes, and further behind the full BAB guys. At the same time, more and more enemies are gaining access to special movement...

I do not share this point of view. And I have played a vanilla monk through the entire Shackled City campaign up to level 17, and I am playing a monk in Serpent Skull and a monk-fighter mix in another campaign. It's great fun.

If you want to hit better there, just get an amulett or an enchanted weapon. If you just want more damage, play a full-bab class, that's what they are for.

And I have rolled several 19s and 20s in one battle and hit everything, whilst the great full-bab character players rolled no higher than a 4. Sucks, but happens, and to some more often than others. By the logic applied in this thread this would mean that full-bab classes are completely broken and really need some assistance there! :-P

To me, the monk is a package that
1) is survivable
2) can function in most situations and environments
3) does not rely on casting
4) is a great support character
5) is not as strongly tied to a background as many other classes (deities, academy, mindset etc.)

If you really want to fly or have some other special feature, take (improved) eldritch heritage (celestial or draconic or something else) and it you're fine. Or ask your buddy to give you a fly spell. Or get an item.

Finally, you do not need to flurry to be relevant: Even with a medium BAB a javelin or a bow can be quite effective. Attacks of Opportunity also work well enough in most situations. Otherwise there are shuriken and feats that reduce range increments, so I do not really see problems here.